McDONALD INSTITUTE CONVERSATIONS

Fierce lions, angry mice

and fat-tailed sheep
Animal encounters
in the ancient Near East

Edited by Laerke Recht & Christina Tsouparopoulou

Fierce lions, angry mice
and fat-tailed sheep
McDONALD INSTITUTE CONVERSATIONS

Fierce lions,
angry mice and
fat-tailed sheep
Animal encounters
in the ancient Near East

Edited by Laerke Recht

& Christina Tsouparopoulou

with contributions from

Francesca Alhaique, Troels Pank Arbøll, Laura Battini, Malwina Brachmańska,
Franco D’Agostino, Anne Devillers, Hekmat Dirbas, Neil Erskine, Marina Fadum,
Jill Goulder, Haskel J. Greenfield, Tina L. Greenfield, Ben Greet, Carina Gruber,
Tuna Kalaycı, Michael Kozuh, Aren M. Maeir, Timothy Matney, Alice Mouton,
Seraina Nett, Olga V. Popova, Louise Quillien, Laerke Recht, Licia Romano, Jon Ross,
Szilvia Sövegjártó, Christina Tsouparopoulou, Lorenzo Verderame, Andréa Vilela,
John Wainwright & Chikako E. Watanabe
Published by:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research
University of Cambridge
Downing Street
Cambridge, UK
CB2 3ER
(0)(1223) 339327
eaj31@cam.ac.uk
www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2021

© 2021 McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Fierce lions, angry mice and fat-tailed sheep is made available
under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
NoDerivatives 4.0 (International) Licence:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

ISBN: 978-1-913344-05-4

On the cover: Shepherd with sheep, palace ruins in background,

photograph taken by Gertrude Bell at Mashetta, Jordan in March 1900;
A_232, The Gertrude Bell archive, Newcastle University.

Cover design by Dora Kemp and Ben Plumridge.

Typesetting and layout by Ben Plumridge.

Edited for the Institute by Cyprian Broodbank (Acting Series Editor).

Contents
Contributorsvii
Figuresix
Tablesxi
Abbreviations and sigla xiii
Preface by Augusta McMahon xvii

Chapter 1 Introduction: encountering animals in the ancient Near East 1

Laerke Recht & Christina Tsouparopoulou
Animal agency and human-animal interactions 2
Animals in ritual and cult 3
Blurred lines: humans as animal, animals as humans 4
Managing animals 5
Animals in society and as a resource 5
Symbols of power: birds 7
Companions and working animals: equids and dogs 8
Avenues for future research 9

Part I Animal agency and human–animal interactions

Chapter 2 Animal agents in Sumerian literature 15
Lorenzo Verderame
The Fox in Enki and Ninhursaĝa15
Dumuzi and the Fly 16
Lugalbanda and Anzu 17
Ninurta and the Anzu’s chick 18
Inanna, Šukaletuda, and the Raven 18
Conclusions: magical helpers and the metamorphosis human-animal 19

Chapter 3 Canines from inside and outside the city: of dogs, foxes and wolves in conceptual spaces
in Sumero-Akkadian texts 23
Andréa Vilela
Canines from the ‘inside’: dogs 23
Canines from the ‘in-between’: stray dogs 25
Canines from the outside: wolves and foxes 26
Conclusion 28

Chapter 4 A human–animal studies approach to cats and dogs in ancient Egypt: evidence from
mummies, iconography and epigraphy 31
Marina Fadum & Carina Gruber
Human–cat relationships in ancient Egypt: the cat as an animal mummy 31
Human–canine relationships in ancient Egypt: the dog as companion animal 33
Conclusion 34

Part II Animals in ritual and cult

Chapter 5 Encountered animals and embedded meaning: the ritual and roadside fauna of second
millennium Anatolia 39
Neil Erskine
Deleuze, Guattari, and reconstructing ancient understanding 39
Landscape, religion, and putting meaning in place 40
Creatures, cult, and creating meaning 41
Folding animals in ritual 41
Bulls, boars, birds 42
Folding animals on the road 44
Human–animal interactions 46
Conclusion 49

v
Chapter 6 The dogs of the healing goddess Gula in the archaeological and textual record of ancient
Mesopotamia 55
Seraina Nett
The dogs of Gula in Mesopotamian art 55
The Isin dog cemetery 56
The dogs of Gula in Ur III documentary sources 59
Conclusion 60

Chapter 7 Between sacred and profane: human–animal relationships at Abu Tbeirah (southern Iraq)
in the third millennium bc 63
Francesca Alhaique, Licia Romano & Franco D’Agostino
Materials and methods 63
Faunal assemblage from Area 1 63
The faunal assemblage from Grave 100 Area 2 66
Discussion on dog findings 68
Discussion on equid findings 69
Discussion on aquatic taxa 70
General conclusions 72

Part III Blurred lines: humans as animals, animals as humans

Chapter 8 Dog-men, bear-men, and the others: men acting as animals in Hittite festival texts 79
Alice Mouton
What did the animal-men look like? 79
The social status of the animal-men 81
The animal-men’s actions 83
Men impersonating animals in rituals 87
Conclusions 87

Chapter 9 The fox in ancient Mesopotamia: from physical characteristics to anthropomorphized

literary figure 95
Szilvia Sövegjártó
Descriptions of physical and behavioural characteristics of the fox 95
The fox as anthropomorphized literary figure 97
The fox in the animal world 97
The fox and the divine sphere 99
The character of the fox as a reflection of human nature 100

Chapter 10 Animal names in Semitic toponyms 103

Hekmat Dirbas
Cuneiform sources 103
Ugaritic 105
Biblical Hebrew 105
Arabic 106
Concluding remarks 109

Chapter 11 The king as a fierce lion and a lion hunter: the ambivalent relationship between the king
and the lion in Mesopotamia 113
Chikako E. Watanabe
The association between the king and the lion 113
Royal lion hunt 115
Symbolic mechanism 118

vi
Part IV Managing animals
Chapter 12 An abstract Agent-Based Model (ABM) for herd movement in the Khabur Basin, the Jazira 125
Tuna Kalaycı & John Wainwright
Herd animals as geo-agents of landscape transformation 128
Methodology 130
Results 134
Conclusions 135

Chapter 13 An ox by any other name: castration, control, and male cattle terminology in the
Neo-Babylonian period 139
Michael Kozuh
Anthropology and terminology 139
Cattle castration and Babylonian terminology 140
An ox by any other name 141
Terminology and ritual purity 142

Chapter 14 What was eating the harvest? Ancient Egyptian crop pests and their control 147
Malwina Brachmańska
Ancient Egyptian crop pests 147
Ancient Egyptian pest control 151

Part V Animals in society and as a resource

Chapter 15 Stews, ewes, and social cues: commoner diets at Neo-Assyrian Tušhan 161
Tina L. Greenfield & Timothy Matney
Background 161
Textual sources of evidence for peasant household economy and diet 163
Zooarchaeological data on commoner households from Tušhan 164
Model building: assumptions about the status of food sources 166
Datasets: faunal consumption and disposal patterns 167
Body portions of domesticated sheep/goat (Ovis/Capra) and status 171
The distribution of wild resources 172
Discussion: elite and commoner diets 174

Chapter 16 A new look at eels and their use in Mesopotamian medicine 179
Troels Pank Arbøll
Kuppû in cuneiform sources 179
Medical uses of the kuppû-eel180
Identifying the kuppû-eel182
Conclusion 184
Appendix 1: Editions of prescriptions utilizing the kuppû-eel184

Chapter 17 Wild fauna in Upper Mesopotamia in the fourth and third millennia bc193
Anne Devillers
Introduction 193
The iconographic corpus 193
The archaeozoological record 199
A hypothetical potential fauna constructed through predictive niche evaluation 200
Conclusions 201

Part VI Symbols of power: birds

Chapter 18 Waterfowl imagery in the material culture of the late second millennium bc Southern Levant 207
Ben Greet
The material 207
Religious symbols 214
Elite markers 216
Conclusion 217

vii
Chapter 19 Ducks, geese and swans: Anatidae in Mesopotamian iconography and texts 221
Laura Battini
Difficulties of the research 221
Anatidae in the natural world 224
Anatidae in the human world 226
Anatidae in the divine world 228
Conclusions 229

Chapter 20 Wild ostriches: a valuable animal in ancient Mesopotamia 235

Olga V. Popova & Louise Quillien
Ostriches and royal ideology 236
The use of the animal and its by-products at royal courts 241
Conclusion 243

Part VII Companions and working animals: equids and dogs

Chapter 21 Face to face with working donkeys in Mesopotamia: insights from modern development
studies 249
Jill Goulder
Donkey-mindedness 249
Modern studies 250
Breeding and supply 252
Hiring and lending 253
The role of person-to-person dissemination 254
Short-distance transportation 254
Transforming women’s lives? 257
And finally, ploughing 258
Summing up 259

Chapter 22 Sacred and the profane: donkey burial and consumption at Early Bronze Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath 263
Haskel J. Greenfield, Jon Ross, Tina L. Greenfield & Aren M. Maeir
Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath 263
The Early Bronze occupation at Area E 264
The sacred asses of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath 267
The profane asses of Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi/Gath 269
Conclusions 274

Chapter 23 Dogs and equids in war in third millennium bc Mesopotamia 279

Christina Tsouparopoulou & Laerke Recht
Symmetrical relation: companionship 279
Asymmetrical relation: dog eat equid 284
Conclusion 287

viii
Contributors
Francesca Alhaique
Servizio di Bioarcheologia, Museo delle Civiltà,
Piazza G. Marconi 14, 00144 Rome, Italy
Email: francesca.alhaique@beniculturali.it
Troels Pank Arbøll
Linacre College, University of Oxford, St Cross
Road, Oxford OX1 3JA
Email: troels.arboell@gmail.com
Laura Battini
UMR 7192, CNRS-Collège de France, 52 rue du
Cardinal Lemoine, 75005 Paris, France
Email: laura.battini@college-de-france.fr
Malwina Brachmańska
Department of Archaeology, Adam Mickiewicz
University, Poznań, 61-614, Poland
Email: malwina.brachmanska@gmail.com
Franco D’Agostino
Istituto Italiano di Studi Orientali, ‘Sapienza’
Università di Roma, Circonvallazione Tiburtina, 4,
00185 Rome, Italy
Email: franco.dagostino@uniroma1.it
Anne Devillers
Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Rue
Vautier 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
Email: as.devillers@gmail.com
Hekmat Dirbas
Ohio State University, 314 Hagerty Hall, 1775
College Rd, 43210 Columbus, OH, USA
Email: dirbas.hek@hotmail.com
Neil Erskine
School of Humanities, University of Glasgow,
1 University Gardens, Glasgow G12 8QQ
Email: Neil.Erskine@glasgow.ac.uk
Marina Fadum
Independent researcher
Email: fadum@gmx.at
Jill Goulder
UCL Institute of Archaeology, 31–34 Gordon
Square, Bloomsbury, London WC1H 0PY
Email: j.goulder@alumni.ucl.ac.uk
ix
Haskel J. Greenfield
Near Eastern and Biblical Archaeology Laboratory,
St. Paul’s College, University of Manitoba, 144-70
Dysart Road, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2M6, Canada
Email: haskel.greenfield@umanitoba.ca
Tina L. Greenfield
Department of Religion and Culture, St. Thomas
More College, University of Saskatchewan, 1437
College Dr, Saskatoon SK S7N 0W6, Canada
Email: tlgreenfield@gmail.com
Ben Greet
Department of Religious Studies, University
of Zurich, Kantonsschulstrasse 1, 8001 Zürich,
Switzerland
Email: benjamin.greet@gmail.com
Carina Gruber
Independent researcher
Email: carina.gruber1991@gmail.com
Tuna Kalaycı
Faculteit Archeologie, Leiden University,
Einsteinweg 2, 2333 CC Leiden, The Netherlands
Email: t.kalayci@arch.leidenuniv.nl
Michael Kozuh
Department of History, Auburn University, 331
Thach Hall, Auburn, AL 36849-4360, USA
Email: mgk0001@auburn.edu
Aren M. Maeir
The Institute of Archaeology, The Martin (Szusz)
Department of Land of Israel Studies and
Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan
5290002, Israel
Email: arenmaeir@gmail.com
Timothy Matney
Department of Anthropology, University of Akron,
Olin Hall 237, Akron, OH 44325-1910, USA
Email: matney@uakron.edu
Alice Mouton
UMR 8167, CNRS Paris, 27 rue Paul Bert, 94204 Ivry-
sur-Seine Cedex, France
Email: alice.mouton@cnrs.fr
Seraina Nett
Department of Linguistics and Philology, Uppsala
University, Engelska parken, Thunbergsvägen 3H,
Sweden
Email: seraina.nett@lingfil.uu.se
Olga V. Popova
Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy
of Sciences, Rozhdestvenska st., 12, Moscow,
Russian Federation
Email: olga.v.popova@gmail.com
Louise Quillien
CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique), ArScAn laboratory (Archéologies et
Sciences de l’Antiquité), Nanterre, 92000, France
Email: louise.quillien@cnrs.fr
Laerke Recht
Department of Early Eastern Mediterranean
Civilisation, Institut für Antike, University of Graz,
Universitätsplatz 3/II, 8010 Graz, Austria
Email: laerke.recht@uni-graz.at
Licia Romano
Istituto Italiano di Studi Orientali, ‘Sapienza’
Università di Roma, Circonvallazione Tiburtina, 4,
00185 Rome, Italy
Email: licia.romano@uniroma1.it
Jon M. Ross
Department of Anthropology, University of
Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada
Email: rossj313@myumanitoba.ca
x
Szilvia Sövegjártó
University of Hamburg, Hauptstrasse 67, 69214
Eppelheim, Germany
Email: ssoveg@gmail.com
Christina Tsouparopoulou
Institute of Mediterranean and Oriental Cultures,
Polish Academy of Sciences, 72 Nowy Świat St.,
00-330 Warsaw, Poland & McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge,
Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3ER
Email: ct272@cam.ac.uk
Lorenzo Verderame
Istituto Italiano di Studi Orientali, ‘Sapienza’
Università di Roma, Circonvallazione Tiburtina, 4,
00185 Rome, Italy
Email: lorenzo.verderame@uniroma1.it
Andréa Vilela
Laboratoire Archéorient, Maison de l’Orient et de la
Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin, F-69365 Lyon cedex 07,
France
Email: andrea.vilela@univ-lyon2.fr
John Wainwright
Department of Geography, Durham University,
Lower Mountjoy, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE,
UK
Email: john.wainwright@durham.ac.uk
Chikako E. Watanabe
Faculty of International Studies, Osaka Gakuin
University, 2-36-1 Kishibe-Minami, Suita-shi, Osaka
564-8511 Japan
Email: chikako@ogu.ac.jp
Figures

1.1 Fat-tailed sheep at the site of Nığde-Kınık Höyük, Nığde Province, Turkey. 2
1.2 Carved ivory lion (probably furniture element) from Nimrud, 9th–8th centuries bc. 5
1.3 Two faience jerboa figurines, Egypt, possibly from the Memphite Region (c. 1850–1640 bc).  6
1.4 Ivory blinker carved with a sphinx. From Nimrud, 8th century bc. 7
1.5 Ostrich eggshell converted to vessel. From Ur, Mesopotamia, Early Dynastic III (c. 2550–2400 bc). 8
5.1 Animal-shaped vessels from Kültepe. 42
5.2 Bull- and boar-vessels from Kültepe. 43
5.3 Eagle-shaped vessel from Kültepe. 43
5.4 Animal vessels rhizome. 44
5.5 Hypothesized early second millennium Assyrian trade networks. 45
5.6 Hypothesized early second millennium routes between Kültepe and the Lower Euphrates. 45
5.7 Likely animal presence within the corridor of hypothesized routes. 47
5.8 Landscape rhizome. 48
6.1 Middle Babylonian kudurru showing the dog as a symbol for the goddess Gula.  56
6.2 Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal: Gula seated on a throne with a dog at her feet. 57
6.3 Impression of a Late Babylonian stamp seal: Gula seated on her throne with a dog at her feet. 57
6.4 The overall height distribution of the dog skeletons from the Isin dog cemetery. 58
6.5 The mastiffs of Ashurbanipal. Relief from the North Palace in Nineveh.   59
7.1 Plan of the site with excavation areas and canals.  64
7.2 Plan of Area 1 Cemetery and latest activities.  65
7.3 Plan of Area 1 Building A with location of sub-pavement graves.  66
7.4 Plan of Area 2 with location of Grave 100, the equid burial, the dog burial, and other graves.  67
7.5 Dog burial in Room 22 – Building A (Area 1).  68
7.6 Equid burial in Area 2.   70
7.7 Fish specimens.  71
11.1 Metaphor explained by the ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ subjects.   114
11.2 Lion with flashing eyes. 114
11.3 Lion-hunt stele from Uruk, Eanna III. 115
11.4 Lion-hunt relief of Ashurnasirpal II, from Room B, Northwest Palace, Nimrud, c. 865 bc. 115
11.5 Narrative scheme of the lion-hunt reliefs of Ashurbanipal in Room C, North Palace at Nineveh.  116
11.6 Drawing of relief representing the god Ninurta pursuing Anzû, entrance to the Ninurta Temple, Nimrud. 117
11.7 Clay sealing bearing the stamp of the Assyrian royal seal, Nineveh, 715 bc. 118
11.8 Assyrian royal seal. 119
12.1 Upper Mesopotamia and the Khabur Basin.  126
12.2 The Khabur Basin with a dense network of hollow ways, location of Tell Brak marked.   128
12.3 A CORONA historical satellite image preserves details of the radial route system around Tell Brak. 129
12.4 Variable herd movement strategies differentially alter landscapes. 129
12.5 Hollow ways visible on the TanDEM-X Digital Elevation Model.   132
12.6 Variations in profiles may indicate differential traffic, hydrological systems, and/or preservation conditions. 132
12.7 TanDEM-X DEM around Tell Brak; the DEM after Gaussian Filtering and Sink Filling.   133
12.8 The ABM gives herd animals an equal chance of picking any given hollow way.   133
12.9 The results of the ABM from four main scenarios. 135
12.10 Close-up views of one of the hollow ways around Tell Brak.  136
14.1 Capturing common quails, Tomb of Mereruka, Saqqara, VI dynasty.   151
14.2 Ostracon from Deir el-Medina, Ramesside period.   153
14.3 Mouse trap, el-Lahun, XII dynasty. 154
15.1 Location of Ziyaret Tepe.  162
15.2 Topographic plan of Ziyaret Tepe.  162
15.3 Photograph of the obverse of cuneiform text ZTT14, docket for receipt of grain by bakers.  163
15.4 Plan of the Late Assyrian architectural remains from Operation K, later level of occupation.  165
15.5 Histograms of relative percentage frequencies of wild taxa.  168
15.6 Relative frequencies of domestic and wild taxa from individual buildings.  169
xi
15.7 Stacked histogram of the combined domestic taxonomic frequencies for each Operation.   170
15.8 Stacked bar graph of portions for Ovis/Capra by building.   171
15.9 Relative percentage frequencies of wild taxa within corrected wild populations of each building.   173
15.10 Stacked histogram of percentage frequencies of good, bad, and ugly wild species within each Operation.   174
16.1 A Mesopotamian spiny eel.   182
16.2 Neo-Assyrian relief displaying an eel. 183
17.1 Sites of provenance of the iconographic material and regional clusters. 194
17.2 Localization of the sites in relation to potential vegetation zones. 195
17.3 Wild ungulates appearing most frequently in early Near Eastern glyptic.  196
17.4 Relative frequency of wild ungulates representations by region. 197
17.5 Number of lion representations in each region. 198
17.6 Absolute number of representations of carnivores other than the lion.   199
17.7 Historic range of the cheetah.   201
18.1 Scarab/Plaque No. 8. Enstatite scarab seal from Hebron. 210
18.2 Waterfowl-shaped scaraboid No. 7. Found at Gezer.   210
18.3 Painted ceramic duck head found at Beth Shean.   211
18.4 Three waterfowl-shaped ceramic bowls atop perforated cylindrical stands found at Tell Qasile.   212
18.5 Ivory cosmetic box in the form of a waterfowl found at Megiddo.   213
18.6 Drawings of two of the ivory panels found at Megiddo.   214
18.7 Ivory panels found at Tell el-Farʿa (South).   215
19.1 Modern birds. 222
19.2 Different breeds of birds represented on different media. 223
19.3 A miniature chair representing geese in natural ‘milieu’. Old Babylonian period, from Diqdiqqah.   225
19.4 Cylinder seals with geese.  226
19.5 Toys in the shape of a goose. 227
19.6 Personal ornaments from Ur.   227
19.7 Culinary text. 228
19.8 The Goose Goddess. 229
19.9 Incised and painted vase from Larsa. 230
20.1 Modern impression of a cylinder seal, Tello, Early Dynastic period.  236
20.2 Modern impression of a cylinder seal, Mesopotamia, Middle Assyrian period. 237
20.3 Cylinder seal and its modern impression, Mesopotamia, Neo-Assyrian period.   238
20.4 Cylinder seal and its modern impression, Mesopotamia, Middle Assyrian period.   239
20.5 Cylinder seal and its modern impression, Mesopotamia, Neo-Babylonian period, 1000–539 bc. 239
20.6 Cylinder seal, Northern Mesopotamia, c. 1600–1000 bc. 240
21.1 Interviewing farmers in western Ethiopia. 251
21.2 Thrice-weekly donkey market in western Ethiopia. 253
21.3 Carrying bricks in India.   255
21.4 Donkeys with 100 kg grain-sacks at Yehil Berenda market, Addis Ababa.  256
21.5 Kenyan woman with seven children carrying food home from market. 257
21.6 Woman ploughing with a donkey in central Burkina Faso.   258
22.1 Map showing location of Tell eṣ -Ṣ âfi/Gath.  264
22.2 Map of Tell eṣ -Ṣ âfi/Gath archaeological site with the location of the various excavation areas.  265
22.3 Plan of the E5c Stratum, Area E, Tell eṣ -Ṣ âfi/Gath, with location of donkey burial pits.  266
22.4 Photograph of sacrificial donkey.  267
22.5 Photographs of the three donkey burials beneath Building 17E82D09.  268
22.6 Histogram of Equus asinus osteological element frequency.   272
22.7 Plantar face of Equus asinus third phalange bone with butchery slicing marks.   272
22.8 SEM photograph of butchery slicing marks on the donkey (Equus asinus) first phalange.   273
23.1 Detail of the War side of the Standard of Ur.   280
23.2 Clay door peg sealing.   280
23.3 Digital reproduction of cylinder seal VA 2952.   281
23.4 Seal impression from Tell Mozan.   282
23.5 Sites with equid, dog and equid-dog depositions in the third millennium bc. 282
xii
23.6 Tell Madhhur Tomb 5G plan. 283
23.7 Tell Brak Area FS ‘Caravanserai’, Akkadian period, Level 5. 284
23.8 Sargon stele. 
 285

Tables

5.1 Anatolian Middle Bronze Age chronology.   41

7.1 Faunal remains from relevant contexts in Abu Tbeirah.  67
8.1 Chart summarizing the textual data about these characters interacting with animal-men.   83
8.2 Chart summarizing the textual data presented in the chapter. 88
15.1 Model of expectations for typical patterns of faunal distributions within elite and commoner residences.  166
15.2 Utility index of combined body portions and associated element categories.  167
15.3 Relative percentage frequencies of wild taxa.  168
15.4 Relative percentage frequency of domestic versus wild taxa, buildings A/N, G, K, M and U.  169
15.5 Relative frequency distributions for domestic taxa.  170
15.6 Percentage frequencies of body portion categories of good, bad, and ugly for Ovis/Capra. 171
15.7 Relative frequency distributions for wild taxa in commoner buildings and elite buildings. 173
17.1 Predicted presence of large mammals in the different vegetation belts. 
 200
18.1 Scarabs and plaques with waterfowl iconography.   208
18.2 Waterfowl-shaped scaraboids.   211
18.3 Fragmentary ceramic waterfowl heads.   212
18.4 Waterfowl-shaped ivory cosmetic boxes.   213
22.1 Frequency distribution of non-articulated Equus asinus bone elements. 270
22.2 Frequency distribution of non-articulated Equus asinus bone elements by age groups. 271
22.3 Frequency (NISP) of Stratum E5c Equus asinus osteological elements by depositional context.   271
23.1 Calculation of meat weight.  287

xiii
 Abbreviations and sigla
ABL Harper, R.F., 1892–1914. Assyrian and Babylonian
Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collection of the
British Museum, 14 volumes. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
AHw von Soden, W., 1959-1981. Akkadisches Handwör-
terbuch. Wiesbaden.
AKA I Wallis Budge, E.A. & L.W. King, 1902. Annals
of the Kings of Assyria: The Cuneiform Texts with
Translations and Transliterations from the Original
Documents in the British Museum. Vol. I. London:
The Trustees of the British Museum.
AMT Campbell Thompson, R., 1923. Assyrian Medical
Texts. Milford, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
AnOr 8 Pohl, A., 1933. Neubabylonische Rechtsurkunden
aus den Berliner staatlichen Museen. (Analecta
Orientalia 8.) Rome: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum.
AO Siglum of objects in the Louvre Museum, Paris
(Archéologie Orientale).
ARM 2 Jean, Ch.-F., 1950. Lettres diverses. (Archives
royales de Mari 2.) Paris: Lib. Paul Geuthner.
ARM 9 Birot, M., 1958. Textes administratifs de la Salle
5 du Palais. (Archives royales de Mari 9.) Paris:
Lib. Paul Geuthner.
ARM 10 Dossin, G., 1978. Correspondance feminine.
(Archives royales de Mari 10.) Paris: Lib. Paul
Geuthner.
ARM 14 Birot, M., 1974. Lettres de Yaqqim-Addu, gouverneur
de Sagarâtum. (Archives royales de Mari 14.)
Paris: Lib. Paul Geuthner.
ARM 15 Bottero, J. & A. Finet, 1954. Repertoire analytique
des tomes I à V. (Archives royales de Mari 15.)
Paris: Lib. Paul Geuthner.
ARM 26 Durand, J.-M. et al., 1988. Archives épistolaires de
Mari. (Archives royales de Mari 26.) Paris: Lib.
Paul Geuthner.
ARM 27 Birot, M., 1993. Correspondance des gouverneurs de
Qaṭ ṭ unân. (Archives royales de Mari 27.) Paris:
Lib. Paul Geuthner.
ARM 28 Kupper, J.-R., 1998. Lettres royales du temps de
Zimri-Lim. (Archives royales de Mari 28.) Paris:
Lib. Paul Geuthner.
xv
ARM 30 Durand, J.-M., 2009. La nomenclature des habits
et des textiles dans les textes de Mari. (Archives
royales de Mari 30.) Paris: Lib. Paul Geuthner.
AUCT 1 Sigrist, M., 1984. Neo-Sumerian Account Texts
in the Horn Archaeological Museum. (Andrews
University Cuneiform Texts 1.) Berrien Springs:
Andrews University Press.
BabMed Babylonian Medicine online [no year]: ‘Corpora’,
https://www.geschkult.fu-berlin.de/e/babmed/
Corpora/index.html
BAM Köcher, F., 1963–1980. Die babylonisch-assyrische
Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen, 6 Vols.
Berlin: De Gruyter.
BCT 1 Watson, P.J., 1986. Neo-Sumerian Texts from
Drehem. (Catalogue of Cuneiform Tablets in
Birmingham City Museum I.) Warminster: Aris
& Phillips.
BIN 1 Keiser, C.E., 1917. Letters and Contracts from Erech
Written in the Neo-Babylonian Period. (Babylonian
Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies,
vol. 1.) New Haven: Yale University Press.
BIN 3 Keiser, C.E., 1971. Neo-Sumerian Account Texts
from Drehem. (Babylonian Inscriptions in the
Collection of B.J. Nies, vol. 3.) New Haven: Yale
University Press.
BM Siglum for objects in the British Museum,
London.
BPOA Biblioteca del Proximo Oriente Antiguo (Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas,
2006ff.)
BPOA 6 Sigrist, M., & T. Ozaki, 2009a. Neo-Sumerian
Administrative Tablets from the Yale Babylonian
Collection. Part One (Biblioteca del Próximo
Oriente Antiguo 6.) Madrid: Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Científicas.
BPOA 7 Sigrist, M., & T. Ozaki, 2009b. Neo-Sumerian
Administrative Tablets from the Yale Babylonian
Collection. Part Two (Biblioteca del Próximo
Oriente Antiguo 7.) Madrid: Consejo Superior
de Investigaciones Científicas.
BRM 1 Clay, A.T., 1912. Babylonian Business Transactions
of the First Millennium B.C. (Babylonian Records
 Abbreviations and sigla
in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, Part 1.)
New York: Privately printed.
CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental
Institute, 1956–2010.
CBS Siglum for objects in the University Museum
in Philadelphia (Catalogue of the Babylonian
Section).
CDLI Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative, https://cdli.
ucla.edu
CHD Goedegebuure, P.M., H.G. Güterbock, H.A.
Hoffner & T.P.J. van den Hout (eds.), 1980–.
The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of
the University of Chicago. Chicago: The Oriental
Institute.
CM 26 Sharlach, T.M., 2004. Provincial Taxation and the
Ur III State. (Cuneiform Monographs 26.) Leiden:
Brill.
CT 22 Campbell Thompson, R., 1906. Cuneiform Texts
from Babylonian Tablets in British Museum, vol.
22. London: British Museum.
CT 32 King, L.W., 1912. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian
Tablets in British Museum, vol. 32. London: British
Museum.
CT 55 Pinches, T.G. 1982. Cuneiform Texts from Baby-
lonian Tablets in the British Museum Part 55.
Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Economic Texts.
London: British Museum Publications.
CTH Laroche, E. 1971. Catalogue des Textes Hittites.
Paris: Klincksieck.
DAS Lafont, B., 1985. Documents Administratifs Sumé-
riens, provenant du site de Tello et conservés au
Musée du Louvre. Paris: Editions Recherche sur
les Civilisations.
DMMA Siglum for objects in the Département des Mon-
naies, médailles et antiques de la Bibliothèque
nationale de France.
DUL Del Olmo Lete, G. & J. Sanmartín, 2015. A Dic-
tionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic
Tradition. Translated and edited by W.G.E. Wat-
son. Third revised edition. 2 vols. (Handbuch
der Orientalistik 112.) Leiden: Brill.
EA Siglum for the Tell El-Amarna Letters, follow-
ing the edition of Knudtzon, J. A., 1915. Die
El-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche
Buchhandlung.
ePSD Electronic version of The Pennsylvania Sumerian
Dictionary, http://psd.museum.upenn.edu
ETCSL Black, J.A., G. Cunningham, J. Ebeling, E. Flück-
iger-Hawker, E. Robson, J. Taylor & G. Zólyomi
(eds.), 1998–2006. The Electronic Text Corpus of
Sumerian Literature. Oxford, http://etcsl.orinst.
ox.ac.uk/
FM 2 Charpin, D. & J.-M. Durand (ed.), 1994. Recueil
d’études à la mémoire de Maurice Birot. (Florilegium
Marianum II.) Paris: Société pour l’étude du
Proche-Orient ancien.
Hh  The Series HAR-ra=’hubullu’, Materials for the
Sumerian lexicon (MSL), 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 & 11. Rome:
Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1957–.
xvi
HSS 14 Lacheman, E.R., 1950. Excavations at Nuzi V.
Miscellaneous Texts from Nuzi, Part 2, The Palace
and Temple Archives. (Harvard Semitic Studies
14.) Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard Univ. Press.
HW² Friedrich, J. & A. Kammenhuber (eds.), 1975–.
Hethitisches Wörterbuch. Zweite, völlig neubear-
beitete Auflage auf der Grundlage der edierten
hethitischen Texte. Heidelberg: Winter.
IB Siglum for finds from Isin (Isan Bahriyat).
IM Siglum for objects in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad.
ITT 5 de Genouillac, H., 1921. Inventaire des Tablettes de
Tello conservées au Musée Imperial Ottoman. Tome
V. Époque présargonique, Époque d’Agadé, Epoque
d’Ur III. Paris: Édition Ernest Leroux.
KAH 2 Schroeder, O. 1922. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur
historischen Inhalts, Heft II. (Wissenschaftliche
Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft 37.) Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche
Buchhandlung.
KBo  Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi (Bd. 1-22 in Wissen-
schaftliche Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft) Leipzig/Berlin, 1916 ff.
KRI Kitchen, K.A., 1969–1990. Ramesside Inscrip-
tions. Historical and Biographical, 8 vols. Oxford:
Blackwell.
KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi, Berlin 1921 ff.
LAPO 16 Durand, J.-M., 1997. Les Documents épistolaires du
palais de Mari, tome I. (Littératures anciennes du
Proche-Orient 16.) Paris: Éditions du cerf.
LAPO 18 Durand, J.-M., 2000. Les Documents épistolaires du
palais de Mari, tome III. (Littératures anciennes du
Proche-Orient 18.) Paris: Éditions du cerf.
LD Lepsius, C.R., 1849–59. Denkmäler aus Aegypten
und Aethiopen (plates), 6 vols. Berlin: Nicolaische
Buchhandlung.
LKU Falkenstein, A., 1931. Literarische Keilschrifttexte
aus Uruk. Berlin: Berlin Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin Vorderasiatische Abteilung.
M Siglum for texts from Mari.
Moore, Mich. Coll.
Moore, E., 1939. Neo-Babylonian Documents in
the University of Michigan Collection. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
MSL VIII/I Landsberger, B., 1960. The Fauna of Ancient Meso-
potamia. First Part: Tablet XIII. (Materialien zum
Sumerischen Lexikon VIII/1.) Rome: Pontificium
Institutum Biblicum. [with the assistance of A.
Draffkorn Kilmer & E.I. Gordon].
MVN 8 Calvot, D., G. Pettinato, S.A. Picchioni & F.
Reschid, 1979. Textes économiques du Selluš-Dagan
du Musée du Louvre et du College de France (D.
Calvot). Testi economici dell’Iraq Museum Baghdad.
(Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico 8.)
Rome: Multigrafica Editrice.
MVN 11 Owen, D.I., 1982. Selected Ur III Texts from the Har-
vard Semitic Museum. (Materiali per il Vocabolario
Neosumerico 11.) Rome: Multigrafica Editrice.
MZ Siglum for finds from Tell Mozan.
NBC Siglum for tablets in the Nies Babylonian Col-
lection of the Yale Babylonian Collection.
 Abbreviations and sigla
NCBT Siglum for tablets in the Newell Collection of
Babylonian Tablets, now Yale University, New
Haven.
OIP 99 Biggs, R.D., 1974. Inscriptions from Tell Abu
Salabikh. (Oriental Institute Publications 99.)
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
OIP 115 Hilgert, M., 1998. Cuneiform Texts from the Ur
III Period in the Oriental Institute, Vol. 1: Drehem
Administrative Documents from the Reign of Šulgi.
(Oriental Institute Publications 115.) Chicago:
The Oriental Institute.
OIP 121 Hilgert, M., 1998. Cuneiform Texts from the Ur
III Period in the Oriental Institute, Volume 2: Dre-
hem Administrative Documents from the Reign of
Amar-Suena. (Oriental Institute Publications 121.)
Chicago: The Oriental Institute.
P CDLI (Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative)
number.
PDT 1 Çig, M., H. Kizilyay & A. Salonen, 1956. Die
Puzris-Dagan-Texte der Istanbuler Archäologis-
chen Museen Teil 1: Texts Nrr. 1-725. (Academia
Scientiarum Fennica Annales, série B, tome
92.) Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica.
PKG 18 Orthmann, W., 1985. Der alte Orient. (Propyläen
Kunstgeschichte 18.) Berlin: Propyläen Verlag.
PTS Siglum for unpublished texts in the Princeton
Theological Seminary.
RGTC Répertoire géographique des textes cunéiformes.
(Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen
Orients, Reihe B.) Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1974–.
RIMA 2 Grayson, A.K., 1991. Assyrian Rulers of the Early
First Millennium bc I (1114–859 bc). (The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods
Vol. 2.) Toronto, Buffalo & London: University
of Toronto Press.
RIME 1 Frayne, D., 2008. Presargonic Period (2700–2350 bc).
(The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early
Periods Vol. 1.) Toronto: University of Toronto
Press.
RIME 4 Frayne, D., 1990. Old Babylonian Period (2003–
1595 bc). (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia,
Early Periods Vol. 4.) Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
RINAP The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian
Period; Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform
Corpus, available at http://oracc.museum.upenn.
edu/rinap/index.html
RLA Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen
Archaologie.
RS Siglum for documents from Ras Shamra (Ugarit).
SAA 2 Parpola, S. & K. Watanabe, 1988. Neo-Assyrian
Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. (State Archives of
Assyria 2.) Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
SAA 7 Fales, F.M. & J.N. Postgate, 1992. Imperial
Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple
Administration. (State Archives of Assyria 7.)
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
SAA 10 Parpola, S. 1993. Letters from Assyrian and Baby-
lonian Scholars. (State Archives of Assyria 10.)
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
xvii
SAA 11 Fales, F.M. & J.N. Postgate, 1995. Imperial Admin-
istrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military
Administration. (State Archives of Assyria 11.)
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
SAA 12 Kataja, K. & R. Whiting, 1995. Grants, Decrees and
Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period. (State Archives of
Assyria 12.) Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
SAA 13 Cole, S.W. & P. Machinist, 1998. Letters from
Assyrian and Babylonian Priests to Kings Esarhad-
don and Assurbanipal. (State Archives of Assyria
13.) Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
SAA 17 Dietrich, M., 2003. The Neo-Babylonian Correspond-
ence of Sargon and Sennacherib. (State Archives of
Assyria 17.) Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.
SAA 19 Luukko, M. 2012. The Correspondence of Tiglath-
pileser III and Sargon II. (State Archives of Assyria
19.) Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus
Project.
SAA 20 Parpola, S. 2017. Assyrian Royal Rituals and Cultic
Texts. (State Archives of Assyria 20.) Helsinki:
The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
SAT 2 Sigrist, M., 2000. Sumerian Archival Texts. Texts
from the Yale Babylonian Collection 2. Bethesda:
CDL Press.
SF Deimel, A., 1923. Schultexte aus Fara. (Wissen-
schaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen
Orientgesellschaft 43.) Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche
Buchhandlung.
SP Alster, B., 1997. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer.
Bethesda: CDL Press.
TCL 12 Conteneau, G., 1927. Contrats Néo-Babyloniens I,
de Téglath-Phalasar III à Nabonide. (Textes cunéi-
formes, Musées du Louvre 12.) Paris: P. Geuthner.
TCL 13 Contenau, G., 1929. Contrats néo-babyloniens II.
Achéménides et Séleucides. (Textes cunéiformes,
Musées du Louvre 13.) Paris: P. Geuthner.
TRU Legrain, L., 1912. Le temps des rois d’Ur: recherches
sur la société antique d’après des textes nouveaux.
(Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études 199.)
Paris: H. Champion.
TU Thureau-Dangin, F., 1922. Tablettes d’Uruk à
l’usage des prêtres du Temple d’Anu au temps des
Séleucides. (Musée du Louvre. Département des
antiquités orientales. Textes cunéiformes.) Paris:
P. Geuthner.
U. Siglum for finds from Ur.
UCP 9/1,I Lutz, H.F., 1927. Neo-Babylonian Administrative
Documents from Erech: Part I. (University of Cali-
fornia Publications in Semitic Philology Vol. 9
no. 1/I.) Berkeley (CA): University of California
Press.
UCP 9/1,II Lutz, H.F., 1927. Neo-Babylonian Administrative
Documents from Erech: Part II. (University of
California Publications in Semitic Philology Vol.
9 no. 1/II.) Berkeley (CA): University of California
Press.
UDT Nies, J.B., 1920. Ur Dynasty Tablets: Texts Chiefly
from Tello and Drehem Written during the Reigns
of Dungi, Bur-Sin, Gimil-Sin and Ibi-Sin. Leipzig:
J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
 Abbreviations and sigla
VA Siglum for objects in the Vorderasiatisches
Museum, Berlin (Vorderasiatische Abteilung).
VAT Siglum for objects/tablets in the Vorderasiatisches
Museum, Berlin (Vorderasiatische Abteilung.
Tontafeln).
VS 1 Ungnad, A. & L. Messerschmidt, 1907. Vordera-
siatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen
zu Berlin. Vol. 1, Texts 1–115, Königliche
Museen zu Berlin. Sammlung der Vorderasi-
atischen Altertümer. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche
Buchhandlung.
VS 16 Schröder, O., 1917. Altbabylonische Briefe.
(Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der
königlichen Museen zu Berlin 16.) Leipzig: J.C.
Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
VS 17 van Dijk, J. 1971. Nicht-kanonische Beschwörungen
und sonstige literarische Texte. (Vorderasiatische
Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu
Berlin 17.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
WB Erman, A. & H. Grapow (eds.), 1971. Wörterbuch
der ägyptischen Sprache, 5 vols. Berlin: Akademie
Verlag.
WMAH Sauren, H., 1969. Wirtschaftsurkunden aus der Zeit
der III. Dynastie von Ur im Besitz des Musée d’Art
xviii
et d’Histoire in Genf. Naples: Istituto orientale di
Napoli.
YBC Siglum for tablets in the Yale Babylonian
Collection.
YOS 7 Tremayne, A., 1925. Records from Erech, Time of
Cyrus and Cambyses (538-521 B.C.). (Yale Oriental
Series, Babylonian Texts, vol. 7.) New Haven:
Yale University Press.
YOS 8 Faust, D.E., 1941. Contracts from Larsa, dated in the
Reign of Rim-Sin. (Yale Oriental Series, Babylo-
nian Texts, vol. 8.) New Haven: Yale University
Press & London: H. Milford, Oxford University
Press.
YOS 11 van Dijk, J., A. Goetze & M.I. Hussey, 1985.
Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals. (Yale
Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts, vol. 11.) New
Haven: Yale University Press.
YOS 17 Weisberg, D.B., 1980. Texts from the Time of
Nebuchadnezzar. (Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian
Texts, vol. 17.) New Haven: Yale University Press.
YOS 19 Beaulieu, P.-A., 2000. Legal and Administrative
Texts from the Reign of Nabonidus. (Yale Oriental
Series, Babylonian Texts, vol. 19.) New Haven:
Yale University Press.
 Preface
Augusta McMahon
The chapters in this volume invert traditional
approaches to past human-animal relationships, plac-
ing animals at the forefront of these interactions and
celebrating the many ways in which animals enriched
or complicated the lives of the inhabitants of the ancient
Near East. The authors embrace insights from text,
archaeology, art and landscape studies. The volume
offers rich evidence for the concept that ‘animals are
good to think’ (Levi-Strauss 1963), enabling humans in
categorizing the world around us, evaluating our own
behaviours, and providing analogies for supernatural
powers that are beyond humans’ control. However,
totemism has never fit the ancient Near East well,
because most animals had varied and endlessly com-
plicated relationships with their human associates, as
these chapters vividly describe. Taboos on eating or
handling animals ebbed and flowed, and the same ani-
mal could have both positive and negative associations
in omen texts. Animals were good (or bad) to eat, good
(or bad) to think, good (or bad) to live with (Kirksey
& Helmreich 2010) and good (or bad) to be. Through
detailed, theoretically informed and well-supported
case studies, this volume moves the study of human-
animal-environment interactions forward, presenting
animals as embedded actors in culture rather than
simply objectified as human resources or symbols.
The chapters in the first section emphasize the
agency of animals via their abilities to resolve crises
for humans and deities and to shift between animal
and human worlds. Animals have paradoxical affects:
as metaphors for wilderness and chaos, or as valued
companions, helpers, or votive sacrifices. The variety
of interactions and assumptions cautions us to treat
animals, as we do humans, as individuals. Recon-
struction of animals in past rituals has a long history,
usually focused on animals associated with the gods
and/or animals used in formal religious sacrifice.
But the chapters in the second section also examine
xix
the impact of lesser-known animals and less formal
encounters, e.g., in the landscape or in funeral contexts
within the home. The value and meanings of animals
could vary with context.
The fascination engendered by hybrid or com-
posite figures is also well represented. The persistence
of composite figures in the Near East, from fourth
millennium bc human-ibex ‘shamans’ on northern
Mesopotamian Late Chalcolithic seals to lamassu and
mušhuššu of the first millennium bc, suggests that the
division and recombination of animal body elements
fulfilled a human need to categorize powerful forces
and create a cosmological structure. The anthropomor-
phizing of animals is another facet of the flexibility of
animal identifications in the past. The authors here
also grapple with the question of whether composite
images represent ideas or costumed ritual participants.
The chapters also cover the most basic of animal–
human relations, that of herd management, use in
labour, and consumption, digging deeply into details
of mobility, breeding and emic classifications. Eco-
nomic aspects of the human-animal relationship are
currently being rejuvenated through archaeological
science techniques (e.g., isotopes, ZooMS), which give
us unparalleled levels of detail on diet, mobility, herd
management, and species. Matching these insights
from science, the issues raised here include the value of
individual animals versus that assigned to species, the
challenges of pests, the status ascribed to and reflected
by different meat cuts, animals as status and religious
symbols, and animals’ tertiary products or uses (e.g.,
transport versus traction, bile). These studies allow a
more detailed reconstruction of Near Eastern economy
and society, as well as emphasizing the flexibility of
the relationships between animals, as well as between
human and animal.
The authors implicitly advocate for a posthu-
manist multispecies ethnography, which incorporates
 Preface
nonhumans and argues for equal care to be given
to nonhumans in the realms of shared landscapes,
violence, labour and especially ecology (Kirksey &
Helmreich 2010; Kopnina 2017; Parathian et al. 2018).
This approach advocates for nonhumans’ agency in
creating shared worlds, in contrast to the traditional
approach to animals as symbols or resources in the
service of humans. Going forward, the challenge will
be to convert the acknowledgement of equal cultural
contribution into support for nonhuman species to
speak for themselves; this shift from passive subject
of research inquiry to genuine active agency in aca-
demic writing does not have an easy or obvious path,
and many nonhuman animals may be overlooked.
Indeed, multispecies ethnography ideally seeks to
incorporate plants, microbes, stones and more (Ogden
et al. 2013; Smart 2014), many of which are ephemeral
in the archaeological record and all but omitted in
ancient texts. However, ancient texts do support a new
approach which questions our modern boundaries
between species. Our perpetual struggle to translate
terms for different species of equids, to distinguish
whether a word refers to rats or mice, or to link zoo-
archaeological remains to lexical lists, reinforces the
complexity and flexibility of these concepts, and the
futility of attempts at absolute categorization.
The chapters in this volume should inspire col-
leagues to grapple with animals, nonhumans and
contexts that could not be included here. For instance,
the snake has as lengthy a history of human engage-
ment in the Near East as does the lion and had similarly
unusual powers. While the lion was an icon of strength,
the perfect symbol for the proximity of the emotions of
awe and fear, the snake has the sneaky ability to slither
xx
between worlds, to avoid capture, and to deliver an
almost imperceptible lethal injury. Fear of the snake
conquers awe. Like the fox, the presence or actions of
the snake, as listed in Šumma ālu, may be positive or
negative omens. The snake was present at key moments
in both Mesopotamian and Biblical literature; its actions
(stealing the plant of immortality, offering the fruit of
the tree of knowledge) changed the fate of humans
forever. Whether represented coiled and copulating
on Late Chalcolithic seals, grasped by Late Uruk ‘Mas-
ters of Animals’ or first millennium bc lamaštu, snakes
and their paradoxical nature deserve deep scrutiny.
There are many other nonhuman animals deserving
of similar problematization and integration, and the
eclectic and exciting research stream represented by
this volume shows us the way.
References
Kirksey, S.E. & S. Helmreich, 2010. The emergence of mul-
tispecies ethnography. Cultural Anthropology 25(4),
545–76.
Kopnina, H., 2017. Beyond multispecies ethnography: engag-
ing with violence and animal rights in anthropology.
Critique of Anthropology 37(3), 333–57.
Levi-Strauss, C., 1963. Totemism. Boston: Beacon Press.
Ogden, L., B. Hall & K. Tanita, 2013. Animals, plants, people
and things, a review of multispecies ethnography.
Environment and Society 4(1), 5–24.
Parathian, H., M. McLennan, C. Hill, A. Frazão-Moreira &
K. Hockings, 2018. Breaking through interdisciplinary
barriers: human-wildlife interactions and multispe-
cies ethnography. International Journal of Primatology
39, 749–75.
Smart, A., 2014. Critical perspectives on multispecies eth-
nography. Critique of Anthropology 34(1), 3–7.
 Chapter 18
Waterfowl imagery in the material culture
of the late second millennium bc Southern Levant
Ben Greet
Throughout the history of the Southern Levant, water-
fowl have provided a fascination for the cultures that
have inhabited the region, which is why images of
waterfowl are often found within the region’s material
culture in a variety of periods. Waterfowl iconography
appears on strainer handles in the Persian period; reliefs
of the Roman period; church mosaics of the Byzantine
period; and in the bathhouses of caliphs in the Early
Islamic period. But the first instance of this fascination
began in the late second millennium bc (from the Late
Bronze Age to the Iron Age I), when waterfowl iconog-
raphy started to occur more frequently on stamp seals,
ceramic vessels, and ivory objects across the region.
Whilst this material has previously been exam-
ined in excavation reports or other thematic studies
of specific materials (e.g. ivory), the aim of this study
is to examine this material as a group to determine
what symbolic meaning the image of the waterfowl
had within the societies of the Southern Levant during
the late second millennium bc. To achieve this, each
category of material culture (seals, ceramic vessels, and
ivory objects) will be analysed to determine the inter-
relation between the specific waterfowl iconography
displayed on these objects and both their contexts and
possible function. Two conclusions about the mean-
ing of this waterfowl iconography are then explored:
(1) that they served as religious symbols and were
connected to the spread of Egyptian religious beliefs
within the region; and (2) that this imagery served as a
marker of elite status through the material chosen (e.g.
ivory), the position of waterfowl as an elite foodstuff,
and its close relationship to Egyptian power.
The material
Seals
During the late second millennium bc, waterfowl
imagery is found on three categories of seals: scarabs,
207
plaques, and waterfowl-scaraboids. These seals per-
formed two simultaneous functions: (1) they were
magico-religious objects, serving simultaneously as
magical amulets and focuses of religious worship;
(2) they were attached to personal identity, with each
seal’s iconography used to symbolize an individual
in legal and economic transactions (Keel 1995, 266,
§ 703ff; Ameri et al. 2018, 4–6). Table 18.1 details the
waterfowl iconography from the first two categories
of seals: scarabs and plaques. Before discussing this
iconography, it is worth detailing the inherent symbol-
ism present in scarab seals. Whilst scarabs were not
the only animal chosen for this type of seal, they were
the most popular. This popularity may stem from the
symbolism of the dung beetle within Egyptian society,
where it represented the concepts of death and rebirth.
This association was likely based on the behaviours
of the dung beetle (Baker 2012, 28–9 with references).
These beetles often feign death and could therefore be
seen miraculously ‘returning’ to life. We can reasonably
assume that this symbolism followed the image of the
scarab from Egypt into the Southern Levant. For one,
dung beetles are found outside of Egypt and therefore
their behaviour, including their ability to ‘regenerate’,
would also be known outside of Egypt. Additionally,
this connection to death and rebirth explains the inclu-
sion of scarab seals within the standard ‘funeral kit’ of
the Southern Levant (Baker 2012, 28–30).
The data in Table 18.1 shows that the waterfowl
iconography of these seals almost always represented
a waterfowl as part of two hieroglyphic formulae: (1)
‘Son of Ra’ or (2) ‘Son of Amun’ (Fig. 18.1; see Hölbl
1979 for an expanded examination of this formula on
seals in Egypt and the Southern Levant). Both these
formulae had political and religious connections with
Egypt by referencing the Egyptian pharaoh through
his divine lineage (either Ra or Amun), with some
examples mentioning specific pharaohs (Table 18.1:
 Chapter 18

Table 18.1. Scarabs and plaques with waterfowl iconography.

Date – Production /
Context (Absolute
No. Site Type Context Range) Iconography Translation References214
1 Tell Plaque Grave 18th Dynasty / LB IIA Side 1: Goose, Side 1: ‘Perfect is the Petrie 1931, 7,
el-ʿAjjul (c. 1550–1300 bc) Sun, Nefer / Side Son of Ra’ / Side 2: pl.14.128; Keel 1997,
2: Uraeus, Maat Divine authority & 146, Tell el-‘Ağul No.
feather Justice 122
2 Tell Scarab Street 18th Dynasty / LB I– Goose, Men, Nefer ‘Perfect is the son of Bliss 1898, 79, fig.
el-Ḥesi IIA (c. 1550–1300 bc) Amun’ 117; Keel 2013, 650,
Tell el-Ḥesi No. 3
3 ʿAra Scarab Tomb 18th Dynasty Goose, Men, Nefer ‘Perfect is the son of Ben-Tor & Keel 2014,
(c. 1550–1292 bc) Amun’ 202, fig. 8.24; Keel
2017, 568, Kefar Ara
No. 24
4 Tell Plaque Palace 18th Dynasty / unclear Side 1: Goose, Men, Side 1: ‘Perfect is the Petrie 1932, 9, 55, pl.
el-ʿAjjul (c. 1550–1292 bc) Nefer / Side 2: son of Amun’ 8.111; Rowe 1936,
Lying caprid No. S. 26; Keel 1997,
208, Tell el-‘Ağul No.
314
5 Deir Plaque Unknown 18th Dynasty / unclear Side 1: Goose, Men, ‘Perfect is the son of Keel 2010a, 430, Der
el-Balaḥ (c. 1550–1292 bc) Nefer / Side 2: Amun’ el-Balah No. 70
Rosette
6 Tell Scarab Grave 18th Dynasty / LB II Goose, Sun, ‘Son of Ra’ or Petrie 1932, 56, pl.
el-ʿAjjul (c. 1550–1200 bc) Blossom/Lotus(?) Encoded name of 7.11; Keel 1997, 176,
Amun Tell el-‘Ağul No.
214
7 Tell Plaque Grave 18th Dynasty / LB II Side 1: Hieroglyphic Side 1: ‘There is no Keel 1997: Tell
el-ʿAjjul (c. 1550–1200 bc) formula / Side 2: refuge for the heart el-‘Ağul No. 274
Goose, Amun, Nfr except Amun-Re’ /
Side 2: ‘Perfect is the
Son of Amun’
8 Lachish Scarab Street 18th–19th Dynasties / Goose, Men, Nefer ‘Perfect is the son of Tufnell 1958, No. 266,
LB IIB Amun’ pl. 37:266, 38:266
(c. 1550–1200 bc)
9 Megiddo Scarab Tomb 18th–19th Dynasties / Goose, Men, Nefer ‘Perfect is the son of Guy 1938, pl. 131:10
LB IIB Amun’
(c. 1550–1200 bc)
10 Tell Plaque Grave 18th Dynasty / LB IIA Side 1: Goose, Side 1: ‘Thutmosis Petrie 1932, 56, pl.
el-ʿAjjul (c. 1540–1300 bc) Men, Cartouche of IV, son of Amun-Ra’ 7.21; Rowe 1936, no.
Thutmosis IV / Side 2: ‘There is S. 40; Keel 1997, 178,
no sanctuary for Tell el-‘Ağul No. 224
the heart except
Amun-Ra’
11 Hebron Scarab Tomb 18th Dynasty / Late Goose, Men, ‘Thutmosis IV, son Keel & Münger
Bronze Age Cartouche of of Amun’ 2004, 240, 255, pl.
(c. 1540–1130 bc) Thutmosis IV 8.16; Keel 2013, 638,
Hebron No. 4
12 Tell Scarab Grave 18th–19th Dynasties / Goose, Sun, Nefer ‘Perfect is the son Petrie 1930, pl.
el-Farʿa LB IIB–Iron IA of Ra’ 22.181; Keel 2010b,
(South) (c. 1479–1070 bc) 90, Tell el-Far’a-Süd
No. 148
13 Tell Beit Plaque Tomb 18th Dynasty / LB II Both sides: Goose, ‘Perfect is the Son Brandl 2004, 132, No.
Mirsim (c. 1450–1200 bc) Sun, Nefer of Ra’ 14, 170, fig. 3.14; Keel
2010a, 74, Bet-Mirsim
No. 70
14 Tell Beit Plaque Tomb 18th Dynasty / LB I– Side 1: Goose, Side 1: ‘Amenhotep Brandl 2004, 142, No.
Mirsim Iron I Men, Cartouche of II, son of Amun’ / 38, 182, fig. 3.38; Keel
(c. 1427–1000 bc) Amenophis II / Side Side 2: ‘Perfect’ 2010a, 84, Bet-Mirsim
2: Nefer No. 93

208
 Waterfowl imagery in the material culture of the late second millennium bc Southern Levant

Table 18.1 (cont.).

Date – Production /
Context (Absolute
No. Site Type Context Range) Iconography Translation References214
15 Tell Scarab Tomb 18th Dynasty / LB I– Goose, Winged Son, Justice Petrie 1932, pl. 7.60,
el-ʿAjjul IIA (c. 1426–1300 bc) uraeus 57; Rowe 1936, no.
576; Keel 1997, 190,
Tell el-‘Ağul No. 263
16 Tell Scarab Grave Mid–18th Goose, Men, Nefer ‘Perfect is the son of Petrie 1932, 57, pl.
el-ʿAjjul Dynasty / LB IIA Amun’ 7.48; Keel 1997, 186,
(c. 1400–1300 bc) Tell el-‘Ağul No. 251
17 Deir Scarab Unknown Mid-18th–19th Goose, Men, Nefer ‘Perfect is the son of Keel 2010b, 424, Der
el-Balaḥ Dynasties / unclear Amun’ el-Balah No. 54
(c. 1400–1190 bc)
18 Bethany Scarab Unknown Mid-18th–19th Goose, Men, Nefer ‘Perfect is the Son of Keel 2010b, 18,
Dynasties / unclear Amun’ Betaniēn No. 9
(c. 1400–1190 bc)
19 Beth Scarab Surface Mid-18th–19th Goose, Men, Nefer ‘Perfect is the Son of Keel 2010b, 180, Bet-
Shean Dynasties / unclear Amun’ Schean No. 189
(c. 1400–1190 bc)
20 Tell Scarab Unknown Mid-18th–20th Goose, Men, ‘Perfect is the [royal] Rowe 1936, No. 648;
Jemmeh Dynasties / unclear Uraeus, Nefer son of Amun’ Keel 2013, 16, Tell
(c. 1400–1150 bc) Jemmeh No. 37
21 Beth Plaque Temple Mid-18th–19th Side 1: Goose, Mn, Side 1: ‘Amun’ Rowe 1940, 19, 21, 85,
Shean Dynasties / LB IIB– bird / Side 2: Two pl. 38.6; Keel 2010a,
Iron IA scorpions 108, Bet-Schean No.
(c. 1400–1070 bc) 28
22 Gezer Plaque Unknown Amenophis III / Side 1: Goose, Side 1: ‘Amenhotep Keel 1995, 90, fig.
unclear Sun, Cartouche III, son of Ra’ / Side 153; Keel 2013, 456,
(c. 1390–1353 bc) of Amenophis 2: ‘Amenhotep, Gezer No. 676
III / Side B: beloved of Ptah,
Hieroglyphic script, Lord of Truth’
Cartouche
23 Gezer Scarab Grave Amenophis III / LB I– Goose, Men, ‘Amenhotep III, son Macalister 1912 I,
II (c. 1390–1200 bc) Cartouche of of Amun’ 320; II, 319, No. 175;
Amenophis III III, pl. 80.21; Keel
2013, 200, Gezer
No. 76
24 Gezer Scarab Street 19th–20th Dynasties Goose, Sun, Figure ‘Son of Ra’ Macalister 1912 II,
(c. 1292–1075 bc) 327, No. 341; III, pl.
208.27; Keel 2013,
352, Gezer No. 424
25 Beth Scarab Street 19th–20th Dynasties / Goose, Sun, Maat ‘Perfect is the Son Keel 2010a, 204, Bet-
Shean Iron IA feather of Ra’ Schean No. 238
(c. 1292–1070 bc)
26 Tell Scarab Grave 19th–20th Dynasties / Goose, Sun, Nefer ‘Perfect is the son Starkey & Harding
el-Farʿa LB IIB–Iron IA of Ra’ 1932, 24, pl. 52.178;
(South) (c. 1292–1070 bc) Keel 2010b, 288, Tell
el-Far’a-Süd No. 608
27 Tell Scarab Grave 19th–20th Dynasties / Goose, Sun, Maat ‘Perfect is the Son Keel 2010b: Tell
el-Farʿa LB IIB–Iron IA feather of Ra’ el-Farʿa-Süd No. 812
(South) (c. 1292–1070 bc)
28 Tell Scarab Room 19th–22nd Dynasties / Goose, Sun, Vertical ‘Perfect is the Son Keel 2010b: Tell
el-Farʿa Iron IIB–IIC line, Nfr of Ra’ el-Farʿa-Süd No. 411
(South) (c. 1292–1070 bc)
29 Ashkelon Scarab Surface 20th–22nd Dynasties Goose, Sun, Milk ‘Loved by the Son Keel 1997, 692, No.
(c. 1190–713 bc) jug of Ra’ 10, Aschkelon No. 10
30 Beth Scarab Open Area Iron I Goose, Sun, Plant ‘Son of Ra’ Keel 2010a: Bet-
Shean (c. 1130–980 bc) Schean No. 65

209
 Chapter 18

Figure 18.1. Scarab/Plaque No. 8. Enstatite scarab seal from Hebron. On the left side of the sealing surface is the epithet
‘Son of Amun(-Re)’, featuring a waterfowl hieroglyph. On the right side of the sealing surface is a cartouche with the
throne name of Thutmosis IV inside. Image from Keel 2013, 638, Hebron No. 4. Image reproduced with permission.

Nos. 10–11, 14, 22–23). Simultaneously, invoking Ra/
Amun links the waterfowl image with these gods. This
is especially the case with Amun, as he was directly
associated with the goose, with some Egyptian tradi-
tions naming him in goose-like terms like ‘the Great
Cackler’ or as the god who laid the egg that birthed
the cosmos (Houlihan 1986, 64–5; Koch 2014, 164).
Furthermore, a plaque from Beth Shean (Table 18.1:
No. 21) uses the image of the goose within a phonetic
spelling of Amun’s name (this may also be the case on
a seal from Tell el-ʿAjjul [Table 18.1: No. 6]).
Table 18.2 details the waterfowl-scaraboids
uncovered across the Southern Levant (Fig. 18.2). The
majority are carved to resemble a sleeping waterfowl
with its head turned backwards, resting on its body.
It is possible that carving a waterfowl in the same
manner as a dung beetle on these seals indicates that
waterfowl iconography had a similar meaning to
that of the scarab, i.e. of death and rebirth. However,
waterfowl were not the only other animals to be
portrayed. Keel (1995, 67–72, § 146–60) lists the other
species that were popular animal-scaraboids in the late
second millennium bc, which included apes, caprids,
fish, frogs, hedgehogs, cats, and lions. Clearly, not all
these animals (e.g. apes, caprids, lions, cats, fish) can be
associated with the concepts of death and rebirth like
the scarab. However, only a limited number of species
were chosen for representation in this manner, which
implies they had some type of symbolic significance for
the individuals who used them. Considering the known
religious symbolism of some of these species in Egypt
(e.g. the cat) and the inherent amuletic nature of stamp
seals, we can posit that these species still performed a
similar magico-religious function that the scarab did
on other seals. Additionally, whilst not the majority,
some of these other species were also connected to the
concepts of death and rebirth (e.g. the frog through
its metamorphosis and the hedgehog through annual
hibernation). Thus, as stated above, it is still plausible
that the waterfowl imagery on these scaraboids was
being used in the same manner as the scarab, i.e. to
symbolize death and rebirth. Alternatively, Keel (1995,
71, § 158) posits a link between the waterfowl-, frog-,
and cat-scaraboids and the worship of Hathor. Some
evidence for this connection could be provided by the
waterfowl-scaraboid with a Hathor fetish on its base
found at Gezer (Fig. 18.2; Table 18.2: No. 7). Finally,
the majority of these waterfowl-scaraboids date to the
Eighteenth Dynasty (c. 1550–1292 bc), the same date
as the increased frequency of the goose hieroglyphs in
the region. This possible link between the Eighteenth
Dynasty and waterfowl iconography is increased
through the position of Amun as the dynasty’s patron
deity and Amun’s strong association with the goose.

Figure 18.2. Waterfowl-shaped scaraboid No. 7. Found at Gezer and has a Hathor fetish inscribed on the sealing surface.
Image from Keel 2013, 286, Gezer No. 272. Image reproduced with permission.
210
 Waterfowl imagery in the material culture of the late second millennium bc Southern Levant

Table 18.2. Waterfowl-shaped scaraboids.

Date – Production /
Context (Absolute
No. Site Context Range) Iconography Translation Notes Reference
1 Acco Unknown 18th Dynasty / LB I Nfr and Keel 1997, 628, Akko
(c. 1550–1400 bc) C-spirals No. 272
2 Tell Street 18th Dynasty / LB I Red crown, Red crown of Waterfowl carved Keel 1997, 246, Tell
el-ʿAjjul (c. 1550–1400 bc) Z-spiral Lower Egypt in relief profile, el-‘Ağul No. 425
rather than
in-the-round
3 Tell Grave 18th Dynasty / LB IIA Lotus bud(?) Keel 1997, 514, Tell
el-ʿAjjul (c. 1550–1300 bc) el-‘Ağul No. 1212
4 Beth Grave 18th Dynasty / Red crowns, Red crown of Keel 2010a, 298, Bet-
Shemesh LB IIB–Iron IB Djed pillar Lower Egypt, Schemesch No. 187
(c. 1550–980 bc) Stability
5 Tell Abu Street 18th Dynasty / Iron N/A ‘Great Royal Found in an Iron Keel 1997, 8, Tell Abu
Hawam I–IIA Wife’ Age strata Hawam No. 11
(c. 1550–900 bc)
6 Beth Temple 18th Dynasty / LB IIB Rosette Keel 2010a, 106, Bet-
Shean (c. 1479–1200 bc) Schean No. 25
7 Gezer Street 18th Dynasty / Third Hathor fetish Keel 2013, 286, Gezer
Semitic No. 272
(c. 1479–980 bc)

Although much of this waterfowl iconography across the Southern Levant (Table 18.3). The flat beaks
originated in Egypt, some of these seals suggest a local of most of these heads point towards their identifica-
adaptation of this symbolism in the Southern Levant. tion as waterfowl, but a painted example from Beth
Whilst many of these seals may have been imported Shean that strongly resembles a mallard is perhaps
from Egypt, some are produced within the Southern the best evidence for this identification (Fig. 18.3;
Levant itself and either reproduce this Egyptian iconog- Mazar 2006, photo 9.15b). The scholarly consensus is
raphy for local use or adapt this Egyptian iconography that these fragmentary heads are linked to the bird-
for their own purposes. Evidence of this adaptation shaped bowls that were found at Tell Qasile, dated
can be seen in the production of scarabs made from between c. 1200–1000 bc (Iron Age IB, Fig. 18.4; Mazar
composite material, rather than imported Egyptian 1980, 98–9; 113; James & McGovern 1993, 173; Dothan
enstatite (Keel 1995, 147 § 386), and with less technically & Ben-Schlomo 2005, 123; Yahalom-Mack & Mazar
proficient engravings, which may indicate production 2006, 158–9; Gadot & Yadin 2009, 398; Mazar 2009,
outside of large workshops (Table 1: Nos. 1, 6, 13, & 25). 547–50). These bowls have the head of a waterfowl
Perhaps the best example of this local adaption is one attached to their rim, as well as wings and a tail, and
of the waterfowl-scaraboids from Tell el-ʿAjjul (Table were associated with tall perforated cylindrical stands
2: No. 2) that is carved in relief profile rather than in-
the-round. This style of waterfowl-scaraboid has no
known comparandum within Egypt and seems to be
a specifically Southern Levantine adapted style of this
type of figure-scaraboid. The examples of, not just the
adoption, but the adaption of Egyptian waterfowl ico-
nography in these seals demonstrate that the societies
of the Southern Levant were not simply borrowing an
Egyptian symbol, or that these images were stripped
of their meaning in the Southern Levant, but, instead,
that these Southern Levantine societies were using and
adapting these images for their own purposes.

Ceramic vessels Figure 18.3. Painted ceramic duck head found at

Numerous fragmentary ceramic bird heads that date Beth Shean. Image from Mazar 2009, XXXIII.
to the late second millennium bc have been found Courtesy of A. Mazar.
211
 Chapter 18

Table 18.3. Fragmentary ceramic waterfowl heads.

Site Amount Context Date – Period (Absolute Range) Reference
Tell el-ʿAjjul 1 head Unknown Undated, likely Bronze Age Petrie 1933, 9, pl. XVII
Ashdod 2 heads Pottery Kiln Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1200 bc) Dothan 1971, 131, figs. 66:7–8, 92:7
Beth Shean 1 head Brick Debris LB I–IIA (c. 1450–1400 bc) Mazar 2007, 573, fig. 7.2:5
Beth Shean 6 heads Temple LB IIA (c. 1391–1351 bc) Rowe 1940, 8–10, pl. XX:13–18
James & McGovern 1993, 172, figs. 86:2–4,
Beth Shean 13 heads Temple, Domestic LB IIB (c. 1300–1200 bc) 87:1–5, 88:1–4, 89:1–2
Beth Shean 1 head Domestic LB IIB (c. 1300–1200 bc) Yahalom-Mack & Mazar 2006, 158–9, fig. 6.1:2
Gezer 1 head Domestic LB IIB–III (c. 1300–1100 bc) Dever et al. 1986, pls. 61:10, 62:16
Mazar 2009, 547, fig. 9.17:1–10, photos
Beth Shean 7 heads Domestic, Street LB IIB–Iron I (c. 1300–1000 bc) 9.15a–g
Dothan & Freedman 1967, 110, fig. 35:1–2, pl.
Ashdod 2 heads Pit LB IIB–Iron I (c. 1300–1000 bc) XVII:11
Ashdod 2 heads Domestic(?) LB IIB–Iron I (c. 1300–1000 bc) Dothan & Ben-Schlomo 2005, 123, fig. 3.36:5
Apek-Antipatris 1 head Mudbrick collapse LB IIB–Iron I (c. 1300–1000 bc) Gadot & Yadin 2009, 398, No. 4, fig. 12.4
Tell Qasile 1 head Temple Iron IA (c. 1150–1050 bc) Mazar 1980, 113, fig. 42:b, pl. 39:6

(Mazar 1980, 99). A similar bowl was recovered from
Megiddo and also dates to the last two centuries of
the second millennium bc (Iron Age I; Loud 1948, pl.
85.7; Mazar 1980, 96).
These bowls seem to originate from Egyptian
prototypes, as similar examples have been found at
Deir el-Medina in Egypt, dating to the same period as
those from Tell Qasile (Nagel 1938, 172–6; figs. 141–4;
Pl. IX). Furthermore, similar fragmentary heads have
Figure 18.4. Three waterfowl-shaped ceramic bowls atop
perforated cylindrical stands found at Tell Qasile. Image
from Mazar 1980, pl. 33:1. Courtesy of A. Mazar.
212
been recovered from Kom Rabi’a, also in Egypt, which
date to the Eighteenth Dynasty, earlier than both
the Tell Qasile and Deir el-Medina examples (Giddy
1999, 308–12; Pls. 69.799; 920; 70.1565; 1721; 86.499;
555).1 The similarity of these Kom Rabi’a examples
to those found in the Southern Levant and at Deir el-
Medina, plus its earlier date, makes it likely that both
the Tell Qasile bowls, and the fragmentary waterfowl
heads associated with them, stemmed from Egyptian
prototypes.
Various contextual elements suggest these bowls
were used in ritual activity. First, the examples from
Tell Qasile were recovered from a temple and a
shrine. Additionally, the perforations in the associ-
ated cylindrical stands could indicate the release of
smoke/incense, possibly used to enhance the ritual
experience or heat up the bowls. Finally, the Deir el-
Medina examples were also recovered from a ritual
context and showed blackening on their interiors,
suggesting the burning of offerings (Nagel 1938, 175;
James & McGovern 1993, 173). Thus, as the other
fragmentary heads from Table 3 were likely affixed
to similar bowls (Mazar 2009, 550), it is probable
these also served a ritual function, which explains
their appearance within ritual contexts (e.g. at Beth
Shean, etc.). Even the fragmentary heads discovered
in domestic contexts were likely used in domestic
rituals, considering: (1) the rarity of this form of bowl;
(2) that later Biblical sources demonstrating evidence
of domestic ritual (Jeremiah 19:13; 32:29; 44:15–17;
1 Samuel 23:16; 2 Samuel 23:16); and (3) that in the
previous period (c. 2100–1550 bc) the religious life
of the Southern Levant was focused on the domestic
sphere (Hallote 2002).
 Waterfowl imagery in the material culture of the late second millennium bc Southern Levant

Ivory cosmetic boxes
Both complete and fragmentary ivory boxes shaped
like waterfowl have been found across the Near East
and in the Aegean, with many of these found in the
Southern Levant (Fig. 18.5; Table 18.4). These boxes
have been identified either as ducks or geese (Ducks:
0 5 cm
Figure 18.5. Ivory cosmetic box in the form of a waterfowl
found at Megiddo (Guy 1938, pl. 104). Image courtesy of
the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Hayes 1940, 92; Barnett 1982, 20–1; Liebowitz 1987,
14; Lilyquist 1998, 27; Biran & Ben-Dov 2002, 141–2;
Ben-Schlomo 2010, 141; Geese: Bryan 1996, 50–2).
However, their morphology is too generic to make a
certain identification either way.
Whilst ivory boxes originated in Egypt, there are
several factors that point towards the origination of this
specific style in the Levant: (1) a higher frequency of this
style has been found within the Levant (Ben-Schlomo
2010, 141); (2) none of the ‘head backward’ waterfowl-
shaped boxes within Egypt can be dated earlier than
those found in the Levant (Lilyquist 1998); (3) ivory
did not need to be imported from Egypt for the con-
struction of these boxes, as the Levantine population
had access to both hippopotami and elephants locally
(Haas 1953; Cakilar & Ikram 2016; Bar-Oz & Weissbrod
2017); (4) the popularity of the alternate ‘swimming
girl’ style of ivory cosmetic box within Egypt suggests
that this was the ‘standard’ style of the box and that
the waterfowl-shaped style was introduced later. This
all suggests that this style was developed as a local
Levantine adaptation of an Egyptian cultural item.
The scholarly consensus is that these objects
served as cosmetic boxes (Guy 1938, 188; Hayes 1940,
82; Barnett 1982, 20–1; Liebowitz 1987, 14; Bryan 1996,
50–2; Lilyquist 1998, 27; Biran & Ben-Dov 2002, 141–2;
Ben-Schlomo 2010, 141). In order to determine their
function and since this form of box originated in Egypt,
we can turn to the Egyptian cosmetic tradition of the
period. From this, it seems likely that these boxes con-
tained perfumed oils, which were used to distribute
a scent around the room (Forman & Manniche 1999,
64). The cosmetic boxes in Table 4 are mostly confined
to religious, palatial, and funerary contexts and this
function of scent distribution fits with each of these
contexts. In Egypt, perfumed oils were used within
temple and funerary rituals, even being placed as gifts

Table 18.4. Waterfowl-shaped ivory cosmetic boxes.

Site Context Date – Period (Absolute Range) Fragments Reference
Tall Dayr ʿAlla Temple Late Bronze Age (c. 1550–1130 bc) 1 head Van der Kooij & Ibrahim 1989, 92, fig.12
Lachish Temple LB IIA (c. 1400–1325 bc) 2 bases, 1 head, 1 lid Tufnell et al. 1940, 61–2, nos.10, 19, 21–2,
pls. XVII, XIX–XX
Beth Shean Temple LB IIA (c. 1400–1300 bc) 1 head Rowe 1940, pl. LIIA:2
Megiddo Tomb LB IIA–IIB (c. 1400–1200 bc) Whole box Guy 1938, 188, pl.104, 142:1
Lachish Tomb LB IIA–IIB (c. 1400–1200 bc) 1 head Tufnell 1958, No.6, pl.48:6
Dan Tomb LB IIA–IIB (c. 1350–1250 bc) 2 bases, 2 wings Biran & Ben-Dov 2002, 141, nos. 200–5,
207, fig. 1:101, pl. IIIa
Megiddo Palace LB IIA–III (c. 1380–1140 bc) 1 base, 8 heads, 9 wings Loud 1939, pls. 12:45–53, 30:157,
45:202–9
Tell el-Farʿa Tomb LB III–Iron IA (c. 1292–1077 bc) 2 bases Starkey & Harding 1932, pl. LVII
(South)
Tell Qasile Temple Iron I (c. 1150–1050 bc) 1 base Mazar 1985, 10–2, fig. 3.1, photo 6

213
 Chapter 18
for the dead on their journey to the afterlife (Forman
& Manniche 1999, 33–4, 36, 109). Finally, both the
contexts of these boxes and their construction from
ivory identifies them as luxury products of the elite.
Carved ivory scenes
Two sets of late second-millennium bc carved ivory
panels featuring waterfowl were found at Megiddo
(Fig. 18.6) and Tell el-Farʿa (South) (Fig. 18.7). They both
seem to have been manufactured locally (Bodenheimer
1960, 188; Bryan 1996, 77; Lilyquist 1998; James 2015,
244), possibly from locally sourced ivory. Both pan-
els were likely decorative elements within furniture,
such as a chair or bed (Walsh 2016, 198). Some other
ivory-inlaid furniture has been found at Ugarit and
is dated to a similar period (Feldman 2009, 184). Both
were found in elite contexts. The Megiddo panels were
found amongst a large deposit of luxury items in the
palace structure (Loud 1939, 17, pl. 33.162; Feldman
2009, 177–9) and the Tell el-Farʿa (South) examples
were found within an elite ‘residency’ (Petrie 1930,
19, pl. IV). Both consist of a hybrid of Egyptianizing
and Levantine iconography (Bodenheimer 1960, 188;
Bryan 1996, 77; Lilyquist 1998; James 2015, 244), with
the iconography of both scenes sharing commonalities
such as a processional scene with offerings, includ-
ing captives, leading towards an enthroned figure;
attendants accompanying the ruler; birds and other
Figure 18.6. Drawings of two of the ivory panels found at Megiddo (Loud 1939, pls. 4:2, 33:2). Image courtesy of the
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
214
symbols in the interstitial spaces; and the inclusion
of waterfowl. However, each group of panels depicts
these waterfowl in a different context. Whilst the
Megiddo panel shows a procession of waterfowl with
attendants, the Tell el-Farʿa (South) panels depict the
capture of waterfowl in clap-nets and the transport of
trussed birds to the enthroned ruler.
Religious symbols
Several aspects of this material demonstrate that this
waterfowl iconography was connected to the religious
life of the Southern Levant in the late second millen-
nium bc. The goose hieroglyphs seen on stamp seals,
whilst referencing pharaonic power, were simultane-
ously associated with Ra or Amun. The connection
to Amun seems particularly strong, due to the links
between the goose and Amun in Egyptian mythology
and the inclusion of the goose in the phonetic spelling
of the god’s name. These goose hieroglyphs also formed
part of the magico-religious purpose of these stamp
seals, as did the shape of the waterfowl scaraboids.2
The waterfowl-shaped bowls found at Tell Qasile, and
the fragmentary waterfowl heads associated with them,
were likely used for ritual activity, both in religious
and domestic spaces. Similarly, the waterfowl-shaped
cosmetic boxes were seemingly used to provide scents
in both religious and funerary rituals. These extensive
 Waterfowl imagery in the material culture of the late second millennium bc Southern Levant
Figure 18.7. Ivory panels found at Tell el-Farʿa (South) (Petrie 1930, pl. LV). Images courtesy of the Petrie Museum
of Egyptian Archaeology, UCL.
ritual/religious connections demonstrate that this
waterfowl iconography had some type of symbolism
within the religious life of the Southern Levant.
To explore the meaning of the waterfowl in this
religious context, we can turn to Nataf’s interpretation
of the Megiddo and Tell el-Farʿa (South) panels. Nataf
sees these scenes as reflective of an Egyptian mortuary
cult within the Southern Levant (Nataf 2011). Partly
following Markoe (1990), she emphasizes that both
the choice of scenes and symbols within these scenes
are taken directly from Egyptian mortuary traditions
(Nataf 2011, 54–5, 58). Specifically, she sees the banquet
scenes as representing a feast for the deceased and
the swamp scene as representing the transition to the
afterlife, both of which were prominent in Egyptian
tombs of this period. The trio of birds in the Megiddo
scene, and specifically the placing of a bird beneath
the chair of the enthroned figure, are also connected
to depictions of the deceased in Egyptian tombs.
Furthermore, both the lotus flower and the papyrus
215
plants are connected to concepts of death and rebirth
that are prominent themes in Egyptian mortuary ritu-
als. Lotus flowers are held by the enthroned figures
in both scenes and by a processional figure in the Tell
el-Farʿa (South) scene. The papyrus plants form the
background of the Tell el-Farʿa (South) scenes and can
be seen in their hieroglyphic form in the interstitial
spaces of the Megiddo scenes. Nataf also suggests
that one of the figures in the Megiddo scene is the
goddess Hathor, who is also connected to death and
rebirth. This identification is based on the figure’s
headdress. Finally, she notes that the rooms in which
these panels were discovered share features with the
mortuary cult chapels found elsewhere in the Levant,
specifically the Syrian hmn chapels in Ugarit (Niehr
2006; Nataf 2011, 62).
The waterfowl in both these sets of scenes may
have also contributed to this theme of death and rebirth.
Geese were magical and apotropaic symbols within
the Egyptian religious tradition, but they were also
 Chapter 18
connected to mortuary rituals through their appear-
ance on funerary Papyri, like the Book of the Dead,
and votive stelae to the deceased (Houlihan 1986, 64).
Furthermore, it is possible that the waterfowl-shaped
scaraboids not only replaced the image of the scarab
on these seals, but were chosen because they served
the same symbolic function of the scarabs, which,
as discussed above, was associated with the themes
of death and rebirth. The fact that some of these
waterfowl-scaraboids were found in funerary contexts
(Table 2: Nos. 3–4); that they repeat similar motifs such
as the lotus (Table 2: No. 3) and Hathor (Table 2: No.
7);3 and that geese appear in funerary art in Egypt all
reinforce this interpretation of these seals.
Additionally, the ecology of waterfowl within the
Southern Levant reinforces this interpretation of their
religious symbolism. The Levantine corridor is on the
edges of two of the major avian migratory flyways: the
eastern edge of the Black Sea/Mediterranean fly way
and the western edge of the East Asia/East Africa fly
way (Boere & Stroud 2006). Due to this location on the
fringe of two fly ways, around 500 million birds from
c. 550 species migrate through the region each year
(Frumkin et al. 1995; Sales 2016). This annual migratory
cycle of appearance and disappearance provides an
excellent metaphor for the cycle of death and rebirth.
Furthermore, waterfowl have a high degree of liminal
symbolism. In many cultures, birds have often been
used to represent the crossing of the boundary between
the divine and mortal realms or between life and
death, due to their ability to transverse the earth and
the sky (e.g. Furst 1991; Riley 2001; Gear & Gear 1991).
Waterfowl take this avian liminality further through
their ability to transverse three realms – earth, sky,
and water – which makes them excellent symbols for
the crossing of supernatural boundaries. This innate
symbolism of waterfowl, combined with the contextual
evidence of this material culture and its interrela-
tion with Egyptian religious beliefs, makes a strong
argument for this waterfowl iconography having a
prominent religious symbolism within the Southern
Levant in the late second millennium bc, closely tied
to the concepts of death and rebirth.
Elite markers
Simultaneously, this waterfowl iconography acted
as a marker of elite status. This partly stems from the
luxury status of some of these items (e.g. ivory panels
and boxes). But, more substantially, it arises from
two aspects of the waterfowl’s symbolism within the
Southern Levant of this period: (1) its close connection
to Egyptian culture and pharaonic power; and (2) its
status as an elite foodstuff.
216
The Egyptian empire was the dominant cultural
force in this region during the late second millen-
nium bc and, while the process of ‘Egyptianization’
is more complex than simply elite emulation of a
dominant culture, we do see an increase in Egyptian
style objects across the region from the middle of the
second millennium bc (Koch 2014, 166–8 with refer-
ences). The Egyptian origins of the waterfowl-shaped
ceramic bowls and ivory boxes show that waterfowl
iconography was involved in this process, but per-
haps the clearest example comes from the seals. The
appearance of a waterfowl in hieroglyphic form creates
a direct connection with Egyptian culture, reinforced
by its use within the standard formulae of ‘Son of Ra/
Amun’, which are tied directly to pharaonic power.
One waterfowl-scaraboid even refers to Egyptian royal
power through the inscription reading ‘Great Royal
Wife’ (Table 18.2: No. 5). Since these seals were used as
expressions of personal identity, this use of the water-
fowl as a reference to Egyptian power can be read as
an individual’s attempt to connect their own identity
to the preeminent political power in the region. In this
way, the image of waterfowl acted as an elite marker, as
it distinguished those with a greater connection to the
dominant, and presumably elite, culture in the region.
Second, waterfowl acted as an elite marker
through their position as an elite foodstuff, evidenced
through the zooarchaeological record (Croft 2004)
and the Megiddo and Tell el-Farʿa (South) ivory pan-
els (Loud 1939, pls. 4:2, 33:2; Petrie 1930, pl. LV).
Liebowitz (Liebowitz 1980; Lilyquist 1998) argues that
these panels represent victory feasts of the Southern
Levantine elite. He bases this interpretation on (1) the
clear military themes such as chariots, soldiers, and
captives; (2) the gathering of large amounts of provi-
sions; and (3) the presenting offerings to the ruler. This
theory may even complement Nataf’s interpretation,
who suggests the scenes represent feasts for deceased
rulers. Whether the iconography of these panels was
religious or secular in nature, Liebowitz’s point, that
these scenes reflect actual feasting practices during
this period, is valid. This supposition is confirmed by
the large amount of late-second-millennium bc goose
remains that were found in elite contexts at Lachish
(Croft 2004). Since waterfowl feature heavily in both
feasting scenes and in the remains at Lachish, we can
presume they formed a central part of some elite feasts
of the late second millennium bc and, thus, were an
elite foodstuff in the region. Koch (2014) even argues
that both this feasting tradition and the involvement of
waterfowl within it was an avenue of elite emulation
of the dominant Egyptian culture during this period.
The procurement of waterfowl for these feasts
adds to their position as an elite foodstuff. The Megiddo
 Waterfowl imagery in the material culture of the late second millennium bc Southern Levant
panel, through the inclusion of smaller sized geese and
a figure with a rod, seems to depict domestic geese,
and the large amount of goose remains from Lachish
may also suggest the presence of domestic geese.
Geese were regular domestic animals in Egypt by the
Eighteenth Dynasty, as is shown by the depictions of
large amounts of geese alongside administrators and
attendants within the artwork of this period (Boess-
neck 1962; Zeuner 1963, 468; Houlihan 1986, 56; Koch
2014). Yet, the Megiddo panel and Lachish remains
are the first evidence for domestic geese within the
Southern Levant. Thus, if these are domestic geese,
not only were they recently introduced to the region,
and therefore likely confined to the elite, they were
yet another example of the close association between
geese and the dominant Egyptian culture, as domestic
geese would have originated in Egypt.
Alternatively, the Tell el-Farʿa (South) panel
depicts the hunting of geese for elite feasts. Since
it is difficult to osteologically distinguish between
domestic and wild geese, it is also possible that the
goose remains at Lachish come from hunted wild geese
rather than domestic geese (Barnes et al. 2000; Koch
2014, 165). Throughout the second millennium bc,
we see a decline of wild animals in favour of domes-
ticated animals across the Southern Levant (Clason
& Buitenhuis 1988, 237; Marom & Bar-Oz 2013, 234),
a trend repeated at Lachish (Croft 2004). This lack of
wild game in the zooarchaeological record implies a
shift from hunting as a subsistence activity to a leisure
activity. This decline, coupled with Genz’ identifica-
tion of bird hunting bolts in Egyptian and Southern
Levantine tombs of this period (Genz 2007) and the
slightly higher percentage of wild game in the zooar-
chaeological record of urban centres (Marom & Bar-Oz
2013, 234), suggests that hunting was becoming an
elite leisure activity during this period. Whilst this
does not discount the existence of small-scale hunt-
ing activities by those in lower social stratas,4 or the
existence of professional fowlers (as may be depicted
in the Tell el-Farʿa [South] panels), even on this scale
the pragmatic realities of agricultural life would make
hunting waterfowl a leisure activity and, thus, would
making eating waterfowl a luxury. Thus, whether this
imagery was representing domestic or wild geese, both
were intimately connected with elite culture in the
region and, again, with the dominant Egyptian culture.
Conclusion
This study aimed to discover the meaning that was cre-
ated when an inhabitant of the Southern Levant in the
late second millennium bc looked upon the waterfowl
iconography that had become more frequent in the
217
region during this period. As the previous discussion
has shown, for these inhabitants, this waterfowl ico-
nography served simultaneously as a religious symbol
and as a marker of elite status. Its religious dimensions
included direct connections with Egyptian religion,
through associations with Egyptian gods, especially
Amun, and through its inclusion as an Egyptian mor-
tuary symbol. Beyond this, though, it also seemed
to be acting as a symbol for the concepts of death
and rebirth, reinforced by the transitional nature of
waterfowl in the region and the general liminal sym-
bolism inherent in these birds. Alongside this religious
meaning, waterfowl iconography symbolized an elite
status through its connection to Egyptian power. This
association was expressed in various ways: (1) they
were directly connected to the pharaoh on seals; (2)
they were included in elite feasting activity, which
itself was drawn from Egyptian cultural norms; (3)
they were possibly a domestic animal confined to the
elite; and (4) the hunting of waterfowl was becoming
confined to an elite leisure activity.
Overwhelmingly, this symbolism was strongly
associated with Egyptian culture. In fact, the increased
frequency of waterfowl iconography, as well as its
political and religious dimensions, may stem purely
from a shift in Egyptian culture. During the Eight-
eenth Dynasty, Amun became the patron god of the
pharaohs, and, as we have discussed, the goose was
closely associated with Amun and, therefore, likely
became a prominent religious and political symbol
within Egyptian culture from the Eighteenth Dynasty
onwards. This mirrors the growing frequency of water-
fowl iconography in the Southern Levant, alongside the
growing political influence this Egyptian dynasty had
in the region. But this is not to say that this waterfowl
iconography is merely an Egyptian symbol that has been
transplanted into the Southern Levant. The local pro-
duction (e.g. plaques, ivory panels) or local adaptation
(e.g. ivory boxes, stamp seals) of these objects suggests a
similar modification of the traditional Egyptian meaning
to suit the societies of the Southern Levant. In fact, the
apparent absence of any erotic or fertility symbolism
connected with these images demonstrates that not all
of Egypt’s symbolism was transferred into this region.
Instead, this combination of religious symbolism,
centred on death and rebirth, and strong associations
with Egyptian power and elite status, was the Southern
Levantine reading of a previously Egyptian symbol.
Notes
1 Giddy (1999) believes these heads to be fragments of
children’s toys, but their striking similarity to these
bowls makes this unlikely.
 Chapter 18
2 It has been suggested that waterfowl had an erotic or fer-
tility significance in New Kingdom art (Hermann 1932;
Derchain 1976; Pinch 1993; Koch 2014, 164). However,
there is currently no evidence for this interpretation
within the Southern Levant.
3 A seal from Tell el-ʿAjjul may also depict a goose with
a lotus (Table 1: No. 6).
4 A fairly substantial amount of avian remains was found
at Tell Halif (Seger et al. 1990) and some water bird
remains were found at Tel Jemmeh (Wapnish 1993),
which may be indicative of these small-scale bird hunt-
ing activities still occurred.
References
Ameri, M., S.K. Costello, G.M. Jamison & S.J. Scott, 2018.
Introduction: small windows, wide views, in Seals and
Sealing in the Ancient World, eds. M. Ameri, S.K. Cos-
tello, G.M. Jamison & S.J. Scott. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1–10.
Baker, J.L., 2012. The Funeral Kit: Mortuary Practices in the
Archaeological Record. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.
Barnes, I., J.P.W. Young & K.M. Dobney, 2000. DNA-based
identification of goose species from two archaeological
sites in Lincolnshire. Journal of Archaeological Science
27, 91–100.
Barnett, R.D., 1982. Ancient Ivories in the Middle East and
Adjacent Countries. (Qedem 14.) Jerusalem: Israel Explo-
ration Society.
Bar-Oz, G. & L. Weissbrod, 2017. The kaleidoscope of mam-
malian faunas during the terminal Pleistocene and
Holocene in the Southern Levant, in Quaternary of
the Levant, eds. Y. Enzel & O. Bar-Yosef. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 363–8.
Ben-Shlomo, D., 2010. Philistine Iconography: A Wealth of Style
and Symbolism. Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg.
Ben-Tor, D. & O. Keel, 2014. Chapter 8. Middle and Late
Bronze Age scarabs, in The Bronze Age Cemetery at ‘Ara,
ed. Y. Gadot. (Salvage Excavation Reports 8.) Tel Aviv:
Emery & Claire Yass Publication, 187–210.
Biran, A. & R. Ben-Dov, 2002. Dan II: A Chronicle of the Excava-
tions and the Late Bronze Age ‘Mycenaean’ Tomb. Jerusalem:
Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.
Bliss, F.J., 1898. A Mound of Many Cities. Tell el Hesy Excavated.
New York: Macmillan & Co.
Bodenheimer, F.S., 1960. Animal and Man in the Bible Lands.
Leiden: Brill.
Boere, G.C. & D.A. Stroud, 2006. The flyway concept: what it
is and what it isn’t, in Waterbirds Around the World, eds.
G.C. Boere, C.A. Galbraith & D.A. Stroud. Edinburgh:
The Stationary Office, 40–7.
Boessneck, J., 1962. Die Domestikation der Graugans im alten
Ägypten. Zeitschrift für Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbi-
ologie 76, 356–7.
Brandl, B., 2004. Chapter 3: Scarabs, seals, an amulet and
a pendant, in Bronze and Iron Age Tombs at Tell Beit
Mirsim, ed. S. Ben-Arieh. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities
Authority, 123–88.
Bryan, B.M., 1996. Art, empire, and the end of the Late
Bronze Age, in The Study of the Ancient Near East in
218
the Twenty-First Century: The William Foxwell Albright
Centennial Conference, eds. J.S. Cooper & G.M. Schwartz.
Winona Lake (IN): Eisenbrauns, 33–79.
Çakırlar, C. & S. Ikram, 2016. ‘When elephants battle, the
grass suffers’. Power, ivory and the Syrian elephant.
Levant 48(2), 167–83.
Clason, A.T. & H. Buitenhuis, 1988. Patterns in animal food
resources in the Bronze Age in the orient, in Archaeo-
zoology of the Near East III: Proceedings of the Third
International Symposium on the Archaeozoology of South-
western Asia and Adjacent Areas, eds. H. Buitenuis, L.
Bartosiewicz & A.N. Choyke. Groningen: Arc, 233–42.
Croft, P., 2004. Archaeological studies: section A: the oste-
ological remains (mammalian and avian), in The
Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–
1994), ed. D. Ussishkin. Tel Aviv: Emery & Claire Yass
Publications in Archaeology, 2254–5.
Derchain, P., 1976. Symbols and metaphors in literature and
representations of private life. Royal Anthropological
Institute News 15, 7–10.
Dever, W.G., L.H. Darell & R.G. Bullard, 1986. Gezer IV: The
1969–71 Seasons in Field VI, the ‘Acropolis’. Jerusalem:
Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology.
Dothan, M., 1971. Ashdod II–III: The Second and Third Seasons
of Excavations 1963, 1965. Jerusalem: Department of
Antiquities and Museums.
Dothan, M. & D. Ben-Shlomo, 2005. Ashdod VI: The Excava-
tions of Areas H and K (1968–1969). Jerusalem: Israel
Antiquities Authority.
Dothan, M. & D.N. Freedman, 1967. Ashdod I: The First
Season of Excavations 1962. Jerusalem: Department of
Antiquities & Museums.
Feldman, M.H., 2009. Hoarded treasures: the Megiddo
ivories and the end of the Bronze Age. Levant 41(2),
175–94.
Forman, W. & L. Manniche, 1999. Sacred Luxuries: Fragrance,
Aromatherapy, and Cosmetics in Ancient Egypt. London:
Opus.
Frumkin, R., B. Pinshow & S. Kleinhaud, 1995. A review
of bird migration over Israel. Journal für Ornithologie
136, 127–47.
Furst, P.T., 1991. Crowns of power: bird and feather sym-
bolism in Amazonian shamanism, in The Gift of Birds:
Featherwork of Native South American Peoples, eds. R.E.
Reina & K.M. Kensinger. Philadelphia: The University
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology University
of Pennsylvania, 92–109.
Gadot, Y. & E. Yadin, 2009. Aphek-Antipatris II: The Remains
on the Acropolis. Tel Aviv: Emery & Claire Yass Publica-
tions in Archaeology.
Gear, D. & J. Gear, 1991. Some birds and their Hindu-
Buddhist representations in southeast Asia, in Divine
Messengers: Bird Symbolism and Aesthetics in South Asia,
eds. P. Le Roux & B. Sellato. Marseille: Connaissances
et Saviors, 501–37.
Genz, H., 2007. Stunning bolts: Late Bronze Age hunting
weapons in the ancient Near East. Levant 39(1), 47–69.
Giddy, L., 1999. The Survey of Memphis II: Kom Rabi’a, The
New Kingdom and Post New Kingdom Objects. London:
Egypt Exploration Society.
 Waterfowl imagery in the material culture of the late second millennium bc Southern Levant
Guy, P.L.O., 1938. Megiddo Tombs. (Oriental Institute Publi-
cations 33.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Haas, G., 1953. On the occurrence of hippopotamus in the
Iron Age of the coastal area of Israel (Tell Qasileh). Bul-
letin of the American School of Oriental Research 132, 30–4.
Hallote, R.S., 2002. Real and ideal identities in Middle Bronze
Age tombs. Near Eastern Archaeology 65(2), 105–11.
Hayes, W.C., 1940. Minor art of the Egyptian New Kingdom:
a perfume jar and a pair of cosmetic boxes. The Metro-
politan Museum of Art Bulletin, 35(4), 81–2.
Hermann, A., 1932. Das Motiv der Ente mit zurückgewen-
detem Kopfe im ägyptischen Kunstgewerbe. Zeitschrift
für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 68, 86–105.
Hölbl, G., 1979. Typologische Arbeit bei der Interpretation
von nicht klar lesbaren Skarabäenflachseiten. Studien
zur Altägyptischen Kultur 7, 89–102.
Houlihan, P.F., 1986. The Birds of Ancient Egypt. Warminster:
Aris & Phillips.
James, F.W. & P.E. McGovern, 1993. The Late Bronze Egyp-
tian Garrison at Beth Shan: A Study of Levels VII and
VIII. Volume 1 & 2. Philadelphia: The University of
Pennsylvania.
James, P., 2015. Kings of Jerusalem at the Late Bronze to Iron
Age transition – Forerunners or Doubles of David and
Solomon?, in Solomon and Shishak: Current Perspectives
from Archaeology, Epigraphy, History and Chronology, eds.
P. James & P.G. van der Veen. Oxford: Archaeopress,
236–57.
Keel, O., 1995. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/
Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit. Fribourg / Göt-
tingen: Universitätsverlag / Vandenhoeck & Reprecht.
Keel, O., 1997. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/
Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit: Katalog Band
I: Von Tell Abu Farağ bis ‘Atlit. Fribourg / Göttingen:
Universitätsverlag / Vandenhoeck & Reprecht.
Keel, O., 2010a. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Paläs-
tina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit: Katalog
Band II: Von Bahan bis Tel Eton. Fribourg / Göttingen:
Academic Press / Vandenhoeck & Reprecht.
Keel, O., 2010b. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Paläs-
tina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit: Katalog
Band III: Von Tell el-Farʿa Nord bis Tell el-Fir. Fribourg /
Göttingen: Academic Press / Vandenhoeck & Reprecht.
Keel, O., 2013. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Pal Paläs-
tina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit: Katalog
Band IV: Von Tell Jemmeh bis Chirbet Husche. Fribourg /
Göttingen: Academic Press / Vandenhoeck & Reprecht.
Keel, O., 2017. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Pal Paläs-
tina/Israel: Von den Anfängen bis zur Perserzeit: Katalog
Band V: Von Tell el-Idham bis Tel Kitan. Fribourg / Göt-
tingen: Academic Press / Vandenhoeck & Reprecht.
Keel, O. & St. Münger, 2004. Appendix II: Stamp seal amulets,
in Y. Peleg & I. Eisenstadt, A Late Bronze Age tomb at
Hebron (Tell er-Rumeidi), in Burial Cases and Sites in
Judea and Samaria: From the Bronze and Iron Ages, eds.
H. Hizmi, & A. De-Groot. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities
Authority, 240–55.
Koch, I., 2014. Goose keeping, elite emulation, and Egyp-
tianized feasting at Late Bronze Age Lachish. Tel Aviv
41(2), 161–79.
219
Liebowitz, H., 1980. Military and feast scenes on Late Bronze
Palestinian ivories. Israel Exploration Journal 30, 162–9.
Liebowitz, H., 1987. Late Bronze II ivory work in Palestine:
evidence of a cultural highpoint. Bulletin of the Ameri-
can School of Oriental Research 265, 3–24.
Lilyquist, C., 1998. The use of ivories as interpreters of
political history. Bulletin of the American School of
Oriental Research 310, 25–38.
Loud, G., 1939. The Megiddo Ivories. (Oriental Institute Publi-
cations 52.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Loud, G., 1948. Megiddo II. Seasons of 1935–39: Texts and
Plates. (Oriental Institute Publications 62.) Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Macalister, R.A.S., 1912. The Excavation of Gezer 1902–1905
and 1907–1909. Vols. I–III. London: Palestine Explora-
tion Fund.
Markoe, G., 1990. The emergence of Phoenician art. Bulletin
of the American School of Oriental Research 279, 13–26.
Marom, N. & G. Bar-Oz, 2013. Zooarchaeology and social
identity in Bronze Age and Iron Age Israel: a research
framework, in Archaeozoology of the Near East X, eds. B.
De Cupere, V. Linseele & S. Hamilton-Dyer. Leuven:
Peters, 227–43.
Mazar, A., 1980. Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part One. The Phil-
istine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects. (Qedem
12.) Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Mazar, A., 1985. Excavations at Tell Qasile. Part Two, The
Philistine Sanctuary: Various Finds, the Pottery, Conclu-
sions, Appendixes. (Qedem 20.) Jerusalem: Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
Mazar, A., 2007. Ceramic figurines and zoomorphic ves-
sels, a painted sherd and various cylinder seals, in
Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996: Volume II, The
Middle and Late Bronze Age Strata in Area R, eds. A.
Mazar & R.A. Mullins. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Society, 572–7.
Mazar, A., 2009. Clay figurines and cult vessels, in Exca-
vations at Tel Beth-Shean 1989–1996. Volume III: The
13th–11th Century bce Strata in Areas N and S, eds. N.
Panitz-Cohen & A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel Explora-
tion Society, 530–55.
Nagel, G., 1938. La céramique du nouvel empire à Deir el
Médineh. Tome I. Cairo: Les Membres de l’Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire.
Nataf, K.C., 2011. An Egyptian mortuary cult in Late Bronze
II Canaan. Tel Aviv 38, 52–66.
Niehr, H., 2006. The royal funeral in ancient Syria. Journal
of Northwest Semitic Languages 32(2), 1–24.
Petrie, F., 1930. Beth-Pelet I (Tell Fara). London: British School
of Archaeology in Egypt.
Petrie, F., 1931. Ancient Gaza I (Tell El Ajjul). London: British
School of Archaeology in Egypt.
Petrie, F., 1932. Ancient Gaza II (Tell El Ajjul). London: Brit-
ish School of Archaeology in Egypt.
Petrie, F., 1933. Ancient Gaza III (Tell El Ajjul). London:
British School of Archaeology in Egypt.
Pinch, G., 1993. Votive Offerings to Hathor. Oxford: Griffith
Institute.
Riley, M., 2001. Māori Bird Lore. Paraparaumu: Viking
Sevenseas.
 Chapter 18
Rowe, A., 1936. A Catalogue of Egyptian Scarabs, Scaraboids,
Seals and Amulets in Palestine Archaeological Museum.
Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie
Orientale.
Rowe, A., 1940. The Four Canaanite Temples of Beth-Shan,
Part 1: The Temples and Cult Objects. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sales, B. 2016. Israel is a pilgrimage site for birds – and
bird-watchers. The Times of Israel 26 February. [Online]
[Accessed 22/02/2020]. Available at: https://www.
timesofisrael.com/why-israel-is-a-pilgrimage-site-
for-birds-and-birdwatchers/
Seger, J.D., B. Baum, O. Borowski, D.P. Cole, H. Forshey, E.
Futato, P.F. Jacobs, M. Laustrup, P. O’Connor Seger
& M. Zeder, 1990. The Bronze Age settlements at Tell
Halif: phase II excavations, 1983–1987. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research. Supplementary
Studies 26, 1–32.
Starkey, J.L. & L. Harding, 1932. Beth-Pelet II: Beth-Pelet
Cemetery. London: British School of Archaeology in
Egypt.
220
Tufnell, O., 1958. Lachish IV: The Bronze Age. London: Oxford
University Press.
Tufnell, O., C.H. Inge & L. Harding, 1940. Lachish II: The Fosse
Temple. London: Oxford University Press.
Van der Kooij, G. & M.M. Ibrahim, 1989. Picking Up Threads:
A Continuing Review of Excavations at Deir Alla, Jordan.
Leiden: University of Leiden Archaeological Centre.
Walsh, C., 2016. The Transmission of Courtly Lifestyles in the
Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. PhD dissertation,
unpublished. London: University College London.
Wapnish, P., 1993. Archaeozoology: the integration of faunal
data with Biblical archaeology, in Biblical Archaeology
Today, 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Con-
gress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, June/Jul 1990, eds.
A. Biran & J. Aviram. Jerusalem: Keterpress, 426–42.
Yahalom-Mack, N. & A. Mazar, 2006. Various finds from the
Iron Age II strata in areas P and S, in Excavations at Tel
Beth-Shean 1989–1996, ed. A. Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel
Exploration Society, 468–504.
Zeuner, F.E., 1963. A History of Domesticated Animals. London:
Hutchinson & Co.
Fierce lions, angry mice and fat-tailed sheep
Animals have always been an integral part of human existence. In the ancient Near East, this is evident in
the record of excavated assemblages of faunal remains, iconography and – for the later historical periods –
texts. Animals have predominantly been examined as part of consumption and economy, and while these
are important aspects of society in the ancient Near East, the relationships between humans and animals
were extremely varied and complex.
Domesticated animals had great impact on social, political and economic structures – for example cattle
in agriculture and diet, or donkeys and horses in transport, trade and war. Fantastic mythological beasts such
as lion-headed eagles or Anzu-birds in Mesopotamia or Egyptian deities such as the falcon-headed god Horus
were part of religious beliefs and myths, while exotic creatures such as lions were part of elite symbolling from
the fourth millennium bc onward. In some cases, animals also intruded on human lives in unwanted ways by
scavenging or entering the household; this especially applies to small or wild animals. But animals were also
attributed agency with the ability to solve problems; the distinction between humans and other animals often
blurs in ritual, personal and place names, fables and royal ideology. They were helpers, pets and companions
in life and death, peace and war. An association with cult and mortuary practices involves sacrifice and
feasting, while some animals held special symbolic significance.
This volume is a tribute to the animals of the ancient Near East (including Mesopotamia, Anatolia,
the Levant and Egypt), from the fourth through first millennia bc, and their complex relationship with the
environment and other human and nonhuman animals. Offering faunal, textual and iconographic studies, the
contributions present a fascinating array of the many ways in which animals influence human life and death,
and explore new perspectives in the exciting field of human-animal studies as applied to this part of the world.

Editors:
Laerke Recht is Professor of Early Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology at the University of Graz, Austria,
and a former Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow at the McDonald Institute of Archaeological Research,
University of Cambridge. She is particularly interested in and has published on human–animal relations
in the ancient Near East, Cyprus and Aegean.
Christina Tsouparopoulou is Assistant Professor in Near Eastern Archaeology at the Polish Academy of
Sciences, Warsaw, Poland, Senior Research Associate and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow at the McDonald
Institute of Archaeological Research and Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge. She specializes in the material
and textual culture of the Near East and Eastern Mediterranean in the third and second millennia bc.

Published by the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,

University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3ER, UK.

The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research exists to further research by

Cambridge archaeologists and their collaborators into all aspects of the human past,
across time and space. It supports archaeological fieldwork, archaeological science,
material culture studies, and archaeological theory in an interdisciplinary framework.
The Institute is committed to supporting new perspectives and ground-breaking research
in archaeology and publishes peer-reviewed books of the highest quality across a range
of subjects in the form of fieldwork monographs and thematic edited volumes.

Cover design by Dora Kemp and Ben Plumridge.

ISBN 978-1-913344-05-4
ISBN: 978-1-913344-05-4

9 781913 344054